Sacramento City Council
October 21, 2025

WRDA 1999 MAYHEW LEVEE REPAIR, AMERICAN
RIVER

COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, SACRAMENTO,

CALIFORNIA
USACE
MBK Final Report Flood Wall at LAR RM 2.7 Left Alternative Analysis 3/27/2007 Final Report Alternatives Analysis Replacement of the Existing Floodwall at Lower American River
River Mile 2.7
MBK Engineers
NatomasEMainDrainageCanalUnit3ALeveeImprovementProject
1995-02
Left Record Plans 2/16/1995 Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Natomas Area Flood Control Improvement Project
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal, Unit 3A Levee
Improvement Project Volume IV of V
The Spink Corporation
NatomasEMainDrainageCanalUnits2Band3BLeveeImprovemen
tProj1996-04
Unknown Record Plans 4/18/1996 Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Natomas Area Flood Control Improvement Project
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal, Units 2B & 3B
Levee Improvement Project (American River to
West El Camino Avenue - Unit 2B; American River
to 1800' North of Arcade Creek - Unit 3B
The Spink Corporation
NatomasFldControlImpProjDryRoblaCrkLeveeProjVol5_1997-
10 Unknown As Built 10/24/1997 Sacramento Are Flood Control Agency Natomas Area Flood Control Improvements Dry/Robla
Creek levee Project Volume V of V
Ensign & Buckley
NatomasFldControlImpProjNEMDCEastLeveeToSacNBikeway19
94-04
Left and Right Record Drawings 4/28/1994 Sacramento Are Flood Control Agency Natomas Area Flood Control Improvement Project Arcade
Creek Unit 1A Levee Improvements (NEMDC East
Levee to the Sacramento Northern Bikeway)
Spink Corporation
NEMDC NORTH DDR Right Design 8/20/2012 Final Design Document Report, American River Common Features, American River North Levee,
River Mile 2.0 to 3.6
Kleinfelder Geomatrix
Nuke_&_Sandcone_Density_Report_10-7_to_10-14 Right Field density tests 2011 American Rive Common Feature, Site R5 Vector Pages from Lab Materials Summary 10-17-12 Unknown Lab Results 10/15/2012 AB Test Results, WRDA 99 Contract 2, Howe Avenue
Sierra Testing Lab
QA CB Unconfined and Hydraulic Conductivity Tests_partial Unknown Lab Results 9/26/2011 Hydraulic conductivity and unconfied compression tests; American Rive Common
Features, Phase 1, Cement Bentonite
Youngdahl
QA-QC Contractor Supplemental Slurry Wall Profile Unknown As-Built Unknown Slurry Wall Profile Unknown QA_QC Contractor Supplemental As built drawing Info Site L2 Left As-Built 7/25/2003 American River Watershed Project, Site L2 Genesis Civil Engineers QA_QC Contractor Supplemental As Built Drawing Info Site L4 Left As-Built 7/25/2003 American River Watershed Project, Site L4 Genesis Civil Engineers QA_QC CONTRACTOR SUPPLEMENTAL AS BUILT DRAWING
INFO SITE L4A
Left As-Built 7/25/2003 American Rive Watershed Project, Site L4A Genesis Civil Engineers QA_QC Contractor Supplemental As Built Drawing Info Site R11 Mod 1
Right As-Built 7/25/2003 American Rive Watershed Project, Site R11 Genesis Civil Engineers QA_QC CONTRACTOR SUPPLEMENTAL As-Built Drawing INFO
SITE L14
Left As-Built 7/25/2003 American Rive Watershed Project, Site L14 Genesis Civil Engineers QC CB Unconfined and Hydraulic Contivity_partial Sum10-11 Right Lab Results 10/11/2011 Hydraulic conductivity and unconfied compression tests; American River Common
Features, Site R-5
Ausenco Vector
QC Hydraulic Conductivity and Unconfined Compressive of CB Site L12
Unknown Lab Results 11/13/2009 Hydraulic Conductivity and unconfined compression test results for CB wall
Vector
R-6 Lab Earth Materials Summary 10-25-12 Right Lab Results 2012 Soil test results, ARCF Sites, WRDA 96, Phase 1, Contract D, Site R6
Sierra Testing Lab
R-6 Sandcone Summary 10-25-12 Right Compaction Test Results 2012 American River Common Features, WRDA 96, Phase 1, Contract D, Site R6
Sierra Testing Lab
R11 Mod 1 Drilling and Injection Records Right Field data 2002 Jet Grout Column construction data, American River, Site R11
Pacchiosi Drill
Site L14 Core Sample Test Rpt Tab Left Field Data 2002 Core Sample Test Data Pacchiosi Drill Site L14 Field Sampling & Testing Tab Left Field lab results 2002 Site L14, American River Common Features, Contract 1, Jet Grout Test Sections, Field Test
Results
Pacchiosi Drill
Site L14 Master Summary Tab Left Field and lab test results 2003 American River Watershed, Conract 1, QC test results
Sierra Testing Lab
Site L14 Sec 06 Column Core Hole Deviation Left Field column coring data 2002 Core deviation data for L4 Pacchiosi Drill Site L14 Sec 07 In-Situ Crtl Coring Tests Left Core tests 2003 Site L14, Summary of coring logs in cutoff wall Pacchiosi Drill Site L14 Sec 08 Lab Test Master Summary Left Field and lab test results 2002 American River Watershed, QC test results, Site L14
Sierra Testing Lab
Site L4 Compact Fill Matl Rpt Tab Left Borrow lab results 2003 Borrow test results - Del Paso Road East Sierra Testing Lab Site L4 Core Sample Test Rpt Tab Left Core tests 2003 American River Common Features, Contract 1, Site L4 Jet Grout
Sierra Testing Lab / Pacchiosi
Site L4 Field Sampling & Testing Rpt Tab Left Field lab results 2002 Site L4, American River Common Features, Contract 1, Jet Grout Test Sections, Field Test
Results
Pacchiosi Drill
Site L4 Lab Test Sumary Tab Left Field data 2002 American River Common Features, Contract 1, Site L4 Jet Grout
Sierra Testing Lab / Pacchiosi
Site L4 Sec 03 Production Table Left Core tests 2002 Coring production table, Site L4 Pacchiosi Drill Site L4 Sec 06 Column Core Hole Deviations Left Field Data 2002 Core deviation data for L4 Pacchiosi Drill Site L4 Sec 07 In-Situ Crtl Coring Tests Left Core tests 2002 Site L4, Summary of coring, video camera, and water tests in cutoff wall
Pacchiosi Drill
Site L4 Sec 08 Master Sum Left Field lab results 2002 Site L4, American River Common Features, Contract 1, Jet Grout Test Sections, Field Test
Results
Pacchiosi Drill
Site L4A Compact Fill Matl Rpt Tab Left Borrow lab results 2003 Borrow test results - Del Paso Road East Sierra Testing Lab Site L4A Core Sample Test Rpt Tab Left Core lab test results 2002 Site L14, American River Common Features, Jet Grout Test Sections, Core Lab Test Results
Sierra Testing Lab
Site L4A Field Sampling & Testing Rpt Tab Left Field and lab test results 2002 Site L4A, American River Watershed Contract 1, Jet Grout Test Sections
Sierra Testing Lab
Site L4A Master Summary Tab Left Test Results 2002 Site L4A, American River Watershed Contract 1, QC Lab/Field, Jet Grout Test Section
Pacchiosi Drill
Site L4A Sec 06 Column Core Hole Deviations Left Field Notes 2002 Section L4A Cutoff Wall Thickness of Jet Columns Pacchiosi Drill Site L4A Sec 07 In-Situ Crtl Coring Tests Left Field Core Testing 2002 Section L4A Insitu Coring Logs Pacchiosi Drill Site L4A Sec 08 Lab Test Master Summary Left Field and lab test results 2002 Site L4A, American River Watershed Contract 1 / Jet Grout Test Sections
Sierra Testing Laboratories
Site R1 SCB QC Test Results for Perm and UC Right Lab test results 2009 Site R1 Garden Highway Cutoff Wall Field QC Test Results for Permeability and Strength
Unknown
Site R11 Moc 1Sec 07 In-Situ Coring Tests Right Field Core Testing 2003 Site R11 Insitu Core Logs Unknown Site R11 Mod 1 Sec 03 Tables Right Production Summary 2002-2003 Site R11 Jet Grout Production Summary Unknown Site R11 Mod 1 Sec 06 Column Deviations Right Drawings 2003 American River Watershed Project, Site R11, Columns D1 to D28 (Corehole and Deformation
Monitors)
Genesis Civil Engineers
Site R11 Mod 1 Sec 08 Lab Test Master Summary Right Lab test results 2002 American River Watershed Contract 1 / Jet Grout Test Sections
Sierra Testing Laboratories
Site R3A Plans_W91238-14-C-0003, FULL PDF SET Right As-builts 2016 American River Common Features (ARCF), Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Business 80 Crossing and Howe
Avenue Bridge Crossing, Record Drawings/AsBuilt
Pacchiosi Drill
SITE R4 Repair EVALUATION OF LOADING CONDITIONS ON

LINER SYSTEM
Right Design 2008 Memorandum for Structural Design, Site R4 Evaluation of Uplift Loading Conditions on Liner
System
USACE
SiteL12DDR Left Design 2009 American River Common Features Project California, Design Documentation Report, WRDA
1996 Remaining Sites, Site L12
USACE
SiteR1DDR Right Design 2009 American River Common Features Project California, Design Documentation Report, WRDA
1996 Remaining Sites, Site R1
USACE
SiteR5DDR Right Design 2009 American River Common Features Project California, Design Documentation Report, WRDA
1996 Remaining Sites, Site R5
USACE
Sites L10 and R3A Final DDR (Combined) Left and Right Design 2013 Sites R3A & L10, Final Design Submittal, Design Documentation Report (DDR), American River
Common Features (ARCF) WRDA 96 Phase 2
Remaining Sites
HDR, Fugro, WLA
Sites L7 and R7 Final DDR (Combined) Left and Right Design 2013 Sites R7 and L7, Final Design Submittal, Design Documentation Report (DDR), American River
Common Features (ARCF) WRDA 96 Phase 2
Remaining Sites
HDR, Fugro, WLA
Sites L9 and L9A Final DDR (Combined) Left Design 2012 American River Common Features, WRDA96 Remaining Sites, Phases 2 & 3, Sacramento
County, Califonia, Design Documentation Report
(DDR) Sites L9 and L9A
HDR, Fugro, WLA and Pacific Civil and
Structural Consultants LLC
Slurry_Wall_Final_PermUC_Results Left Lab Results 2008 Mayhew Levee Raise and Closure Structure Project, Permeability and Unconfined
Compression Test Summary
Sierra Testing Laboratories
Structural_DDR_Closure Left Design undated Mayhew Closure Structure DDR Outline Unknown Tech Memo - Additional Geotechnical Investigations and
Recommendations for Deep Cutoff Wall Section (2000)
Left Design 2000 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
USACE
Tech Memo - Deep Cutoff Wall Section Left Bank Levee
Strengthening (1999)
Left Design 1999 Technical Memorandum, Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project
(Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
USACE
Unit118_Pt1_01-04-0362 Left As Constructed Drawings 1950 Proposed Levee Enlargement, South Levee of American River, 16th Street Bridge to Mayhews
USACE
Unit118_Pt1_01-04-0374 Left As Constructed Drawings 1952 South Levee American River, Downstream from 16th St. Bridge and H St. Bridge
USACE
Unit118_Pt1_01-04-0378 Left As Constructed Drawings 1952 Emergency Bank Protection, Left Bank American River
USACE
Unit118_Pt1_06-13-1100 Left As Constructed Drawings 1933 Sacramento River, California USACE Unit118_Pt1_50-04-2897 Left Plans 1952 Sacramento River, California, Flood Control Project, Surface Levee Crown for Patrol Road
Purposes
USACE
Unit118_Pt1_50-04-3702 Left and Right As Constructed Drawings 1962 Sacramento River, California, Flood Control Project, Sacramento River, American River,
Natomas Canal, Levee Rehabilitation and Patrol
Road, Vicinity of Sacramento, California
USACE
Unit118_Pt1_50-04-4118 Left As Constructed Drawings 1965 Sacramento River and Tributaries, California, Bank Protection Project, Various Locations, Left
Bank Sacramento and American Rivers and Right
and Left Bank Feather River and Elder Creek
USACE
Unit118_Pt1_50-04-4283 Left and Right As Constructed Drawings 1949 Sacramento River and Tributaries, California, Bank Protection Project, Various Locations, Right
and Left Bank Sacramento River and Georgiana
Slough
USACE
Unit118_Pt1_50-10-2792 Left As Constructed Drawings 1951 Sacramento and American River Profile - Left Bank From Mi 59.73 to 16th St Bridge
USACE
Unit118_Pt2_1-4-392 As Constructed Drawings 1954 Sacramento River, California, Flood Control Project, American River - Natomas Canal, Arcade
Creek, and Linda Creek, Levee Construction
USACE
Unit118_Pt2_50-4-4078 Left and Right As Constructed Drawings 1967 Sacramento River and Tributaries, California, Bank Protection Project, Various Locations, Right
and Left Banks Sacramento River and Feather
River
USACE
USACE MFR Summary of Hydraulic Effects in the Mayhew Drain Area Associated with the American River Projects
Left Design 2008 Mayhew Drain Closure Structure Hydraulic Design and Evaluation of Hydraulic Effects in the
Mayhew Drain Area Associated with the
American River Projects
USACE
USACESupplementalRecordDrawingInformation (2) Left As Constructed 2000 USACE Developed QA/QC data supplement "Record" drawings, Contract 1 Geo Con
USACE
USACESupplementalRecordDrawingInformation (3) Right As Constructed 2000 Remaining Right Bank - USACE Supplemental Record Drawings
Unknown
USACESupplementalRecordDrawingInformation Left As Constructed 2001 USACE Developed QA/QC data supplement "Record" drawings, Contract 2 Geo Con
USACE
Vol4_01-04-0375 Right As Constructed 1950 American River, California, Emergency Flood Control, Levee Repairs and Bank Protection,
North Levee American River 1.3 Miles Above H
Street Bridge
USACE
Vol4_01-04-0415 Right As Constructed 1957 American River, California, Flood Control Project, Fair Grounds to Carmichael Bluffs, Levee
Construction and Bank Protection
USACE
WRDA Phase III Remaining Sites Final RMR Oct 2012 Left and Right Design 2012 American River Watershed Common Features Project, Remediation Methods Report, WRDA
1996 Phase III Remaining Sites L3, L9, R2, R9, and
R10, Final
USACE

D-1
Table D-1. ULDC Hydraulic Parameter Profiles, American River North Levee Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
SVRP
(feet)
Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
SVRP
(feet)
3000+00 35.64 38.64 38.64 34.46 3052+00 37.09 40.09 40.09 35.52 3001+00 35.61 38.61 38.61 34.47 3053+00 37.10 40.10 40.10 35.53 3002+00 35.58 38.58 38.58 34.48 3054+00 37.11 40.11 40.11 35.53 3003+00 35.55 38.55 38.55 34.48 3055+00 37.12 40.12 40.12 35.54 3004+00 35.52 38.52 38.52 34.49 3056+00 37.14 40.14 40.14 35.55 3005+00 35.50 38.50 38.50 34.50 3057+00 37.15 40.15 40.15 35.56 3006+00 35.47 38.47 38.47 34.51 3058+00 37.16 40.16 40.16 35.57 3007+00 35.48 38.48 38.48 34.51 3059+00 37.17 40.17 40.17 35.58 3008+00 35.49 38.49 38.49 34.52 3060+00 37.18 40.18 40.18 35.59 3009+00 35.51 38.51 38.51 34.53 3061+00 37.20 40.20 40.20 35.60 3010+00 35.52 38.52 38.52 34.54 3062+00 37.21 40.21 40.21 35.61 3011+00 35.53 38.53 38.53 34.55 3063+00 37.23 40.23 40.23 35.63 3012+00 35.55 38.55 38.55 34.56 3064+00 37.24 40.24 40.24 35.64 3013+00 35.56 38.56 38.56 34.56 3065+00 37.26 40.26 40.26 35.65 3014+00 35.55 38.55 38.55 34.56 3066+00 37.27 40.27 40.27 35.66 3015+00 35.55 38.55 38.55 34.55 3067+00 37.29 40.29 40.29 35.67 3016+00 35.91 38.91 38.91 34.77 3068+00 37.30 40.30 40.30 35.68 3017+00 35.99 38.99 38.99 34.82 3069+00 37.32 40.32 40.32 35.69 3018+00 36.07 39.07 39.07 34.89 3070+00 37.34 40.34 40.34 35.70 3019+00 36.15 39.15 39.15 34.94 3071+00 37.37 40.37 40.37 35.71 3020+00 36.29 39.29 39.29 35.02 3072+00 37.40 40.40 40.40 35.71 3021+00 36.28 39.28 39.28 35.00 3073+00 37.44 40.44 40.44 35.72 3022+00 36.30 39.30 39.30 35.00 3074+00 37.47 40.47 40.47 35.72 3023+00 36.32 39.32 39.32 35.01 3075+00 37.50 40.50 40.50 35.72 3024+00 36.33 39.33 39.33 35.02 3076+00 37.53 40.53 40.53 35.73 3025+00 36.35 39.35 39.35 35.03 3077+00 37.57 40.57 40.57 35.74 3026+00 36.36 39.36 39.36 35.04 3078+00 37.63 40.63 40.63 35.79 3027+00 36.38 39.38 39.38 35.04 3079+00 37.69 40.69 40.69 35.83 3028+00 36.40 39.40 39.40 35.05 3080+00 37.75 40.75 40.75 35.87 3029+00 36.41 39.41 39.41 35.06 3081+00 37.81 40.81 40.81 35.91 3030+00 36.43 39.43 39.43 35.07 3082+00 37.87 40.87 40.87 35.95 3031+00 36.44 39.44 39.44 35.08 3083+00 37.92 40.92 40.92 35.99 3032+00 36.46 39.46 39.46 35.08 3084+00 37.94 40.94 40.94 36.02 3033+00 36.48 39.48 39.48 35.09 3085+00 37.87 40.87 40.87 35.97 3034+00 36.49 39.49 39.49 35.10 3086+00 38.06 41.06 41.06 36.12 3035+00 36.54 39.54 39.54 35.13 3087+00 38.06 41.06 41.06 36.13 3036+00 36.58 39.58 39.58 35.16 3088+00 38.05 41.05 41.05 36.13 3037+00 36.63 39.63 39.63 35.18 3089+00 38.05 41.05 41.05 36.13 3038+00 36.67 39.67 39.67 35.21 3090+00 38.04 41.04 41.04 36.14 3039+00 36.72 39.72 39.72 35.25 3091+00 38.03 41.03 41.03 36.14 3040+00 36.77 39.77 39.77 35.28 3092+00 38.03 41.03 41.03 36.14 3041+00 36.83 39.83 39.83 35.32 3093+00 38.02 41.02 41.02 36.14 3042+00 36.88 39.88 39.88 35.36 3094+00 38.01 41.01 41.01 36.15 3043+00 36.92 39.92 39.92 35.39 3095+00 38.01 41.01 41.01 36.15 3044+00 36.95 39.95 39.95 35.41 3096+00 38.00 41.00 41.00 36.15 3045+00 36.98 39.98 39.98 35.43 3097+00 37.99 40.99 40.99 36.16 3046+00 37.01 40.01 40.01 35.45 3098+00 37.99 40.99 40.99 36.16 3047+00 37.03 40.03 40.03 35.47 3099+00 37.98 40.98 40.98 36.16 3048+00 37.04 40.04 40.04 35.48 3100+00 37.99 40.99 40.99 36.17 3049+00 37.06 40.06 40.06 35.49 3101+00 38.02 41.02 41.02 36.20 3050+00 37.07 40.07 40.07 35.50 3102+00 38.14 41.14 41.14 36.27 3051+00 37.08 40.08 40.08 35.51 3103+00 38.09 41.09 41.09 36.22 D-2
Table D-1. ULDC Hydraulic Parameter Profiles, American River North Levee (cont.) Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
SVRP
(feet)
Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
SVRP
(feet)
3104+00 38.12 41.12 41.12 36.23 3156+00 40.06 43.06 43.06 37.93 3105+00 38.15 41.15 41.15 36.26 3157+00 40.11 43.11 43.11 37.99 3106+00 38.19 41.19 41.19 36.29 3158+00 40.13 43.13 43.13 38.00 3107+00 38.22 41.22 41.22 36.32 3159+00 40.15 43.15 43.15 38.01 3108+00 38.25 41.25 41.25 36.34 3160+00 40.16 43.16 43.16 38.02 3109+00 38.28 41.28 41.28 36.36 3161+00 40.18 43.18 43.18 38.03 3110+00 38.31 41.31 41.31 36.38 3162+00 40.19 43.19 43.19 38.04 3111+00 38.34 41.34 41.34 36.40 3163+00 40.21 43.21 43.21 38.05 3112+00 38.37 41.37 41.37 36.42 3164+00 40.22 43.22 43.22 38.06 3113+00 38.41 41.41 41.41 36.44 3165+00 40.24 43.24 43.24 38.06 3114+00 38.43 41.43 41.43 36.45 3166+00 40.25 43.25 43.25 38.07 3115+00 38.43 41.43 41.43 36.45 3167+00 40.27 43.27 43.27 38.08 3116+00 38.43 41.43 41.43 36.44 3168+00 40.28 43.28 43.28 38.09 3117+00 38.43 41.43 41.43 36.44 3169+00 40.32 43.32 43.32 38.11 3118+00 38.44 41.44 41.44 36.43 3170+00 40.39 43.39 43.39 38.15 3119+00 38.44 41.44 41.44 36.43 3171+00 40.45 43.45 43.45 38.18 3120+00 38.44 41.44 41.44 36.43 3172+00 40.51 43.51 43.51 38.21 3121+00 38.44 41.44 41.44 36.42 3173+00 40.58 43.58 43.58 38.25 3122+00 38.44 41.44 41.44 36.42 3174+00 40.64 43.64 43.64 38.28 3123+00 38.45 41.45 41.45 36.42 3175+00 40.71 43.71 43.71 38.32 3124+00 38.50 41.50 41.50 36.46 3176+00 40.77 43.77 43.77 38.35 3125+00 38.57 41.57 41.57 36.53 3177+00 40.83 43.83 43.83 38.39 3126+00 38.64 41.64 41.64 36.59 3178+00 40.90 43.90 43.90 38.42 3127+00 38.71 41.71 41.71 36.66 3179+00 40.96 43.96 43.96 38.45 3128+00 38.78 41.78 41.78 36.73 3180+00 41.02 44.02 44.02 38.49 3129+00 38.85 41.85 41.85 36.79 3181+00 41.05 44.05 44.05 38.51 3130+00 38.92 41.92 41.92 36.86 3182+00 41.07 44.07 44.07 38.53 3131+00 38.99 41.99 41.99 36.93 3183+00 41.10 44.10 44.10 38.55 3132+00 39.06 42.06 42.06 36.99 3184+00 41.12 44.12 44.12 38.58 3133+00 39.10 42.10 42.10 37.03 3185+00 41.15 44.15 44.15 38.60 3134+00 39.14 42.14 42.14 37.05 3186+00 41.17 44.17 44.17 38.62 3135+00 39.17 42.17 42.17 37.07 3187+00 41.19 44.19 44.19 38.65 3136+00 39.20 42.20 42.20 37.10 3188+00 41.22 44.22 44.22 38.67 3137+00 39.23 42.23 42.23 37.12 3189+00 41.24 44.24 44.24 38.69 3138+00 39.27 42.27 42.27 37.15 3190+00 41.27 44.27 44.27 38.71 3139+00 39.30 42.30 42.30 37.18 3191+00 41.29 44.29 44.29 38.74 3140+00 39.34 42.34 42.34 37.21 3192+00 41.31 44.31 44.31 38.76 3141+00 39.39 42.39 42.39 37.25 3193+00 41.30 44.30 44.30 38.78 3142+00 39.43 42.43 42.43 37.28 3194+00 41.30 44.30 44.30 38.81 3143+00 39.47 42.47 42.47 37.31 3195+00 41.29 44.29 44.29 38.83 3144+00 39.51 42.51 42.51 37.35 3196+00 41.28 44.28 44.28 38.85 3145+00 39.55 42.55 42.55 37.38 3197+00 41.28 44.28 44.28 38.88 3146+00 39.59 42.59 42.59 37.41 3198+00 41.27 44.27 44.27 38.90 3147+00 39.63 42.63 42.63 37.45 3199+00 41.27 44.27 44.27 38.92 3148+00 39.67 42.67 42.67 37.49 3200+00 41.26 44.26 44.26 38.95 3149+00 39.72 42.72 42.72 37.55 3201+00 41.25 44.25 44.25 38.97 3150+00 39.77 42.77 42.77 37.60 3202+00 41.25 44.25 44.25 38.99 3151+00 39.82 42.82 42.82 37.66 3203+00 41.22 44.22 44.22 38.97 3152+00 39.87 42.87 42.87 37.71 3204+00 41.19 44.19 44.19 38.95 3153+00 39.92 42.92 42.92 37.77 3205+00 41.15 44.15 44.15 38.93 3154+00 39.96 42.96 42.96 37.82 3206+00 41.12 44.12 44.12 38.91 3155+00 40.01 43.01 43.01 37.88 3207+00 41.09 44.09 44.09 38.89 D-3
Table D-1. ULDC Hydraulic Parameter Profiles, American River North Levee (cont.) Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
SVRP
(feet)
Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
SVRP
(feet)
3208+00 41.06 44.06 44.06 38.87 3260+00 43.77 46.77 46.77 41.24 3209+00 41.03 44.03 44.03 38.85 3261+00 43.83 46.83 46.83 41.28 3210+00 41.00 44.00 44.00 38.83 3262+00 43.89 46.89 46.89 41.31 3211+00 40.97 43.97 43.97 38.81 3263+00 43.95 46.95 46.95 41.35 3212+00 40.94 43.94 43.94 38.79 3264+00 44.01 47.01 47.01 41.39 3213+00 40.92 43.92 43.92 38.78 3265+00 44.32 47.32 47.32 41.62 3214+00 41.03 44.03 44.03 38.89 3266+00 44.41 47.41 47.41 41.68 3215+00 41.15 44.15 44.15 38.99 3267+00 44.50 47.50 47.50 41.74 3216+00 41.26 44.26 44.26 39.10 3268+00 44.59 47.59 47.59 41.80 3217+00 41.38 44.38 44.38 39.21 3269+00 44.67 47.67 47.67 41.86 3218+00 41.49 44.49 44.49 39.32 3270+00 44.76 47.76 47.76 41.92 3219+00 41.60 44.60 44.60 39.40 3271+00 44.85 47.85 47.85 41.98 3220+00 41.69 44.69 44.69 39.46 3272+00 44.96 47.96 47.96 42.07 3221+00 41.79 44.79 44.79 39.53 3273+00 45.10 48.10 48.10 42.18 3222+00 41.89 44.89 44.89 39.60 3274+00 45.23 48.23 48.23 42.29 3223+00 41.99 44.99 44.99 39.67 3275+00 45.13 48.13 48.13 42.21 3224+00 42.09 45.09 45.09 39.76 3276+00 45.34 48.34 48.34 42.36 3225+00 42.20 45.20 45.20 39.85 3277+00 45.61 48.61 48.61 42.58 3226+00 42.30 45.30 45.30 39.94 3278+00 45.68 48.68 48.68 42.64 3227+00 42.41 45.41 45.41 40.03 3279+00 45.75 48.75 48.75 42.69 3228+00 42.46 45.46 45.46 40.07 3280+00 45.81 48.81 48.81 42.74 3229+00 42.47 45.47 45.47 40.09 3281+00 45.83 48.83 48.83 42.76 3230+00 42.49 45.49 45.49 40.12 3282+00 45.85 48.85 48.85 42.77 3231+00 42.50 45.50 45.50 40.14 3283+00 45.87 48.87 48.87 42.79 3232+00 42.52 45.52 45.52 40.16 3284+00 45.89 48.89 48.89 42.80 3233+00 42.54 45.54 45.54 40.20 3285+00 45.91 48.91 48.91 42.82 3234+00 42.58 45.58 45.58 40.26 3286+00 45.93 48.93 48.93 42.83 3235+00 42.61 45.61 45.61 40.32 3287+00 45.95 48.95 48.95 42.85 3236+00 42.64 45.64 45.64 40.37 3288+00 45.99 48.99 48.99 42.88 3237+00 42.69 45.69 45.69 40.43 3289+00 46.06 49.06 49.06 42.93 3238+00 42.75 45.75 45.75 40.50 3290+00 46.13 49.13 49.13 42.99 3239+00 42.82 45.82 45.82 40.57 3291+00 46.20 49.20 49.20 43.04 3240+00 42.88 45.88 45.88 40.63 3292+00 46.27 49.27 49.27 43.09 3241+00 43.04 46.04 46.04 40.77 3293+00 46.34 49.34 49.34 43.15 3242+00 42.84 45.84 45.84 40.65 3294+00 46.32 49.32 49.32 43.13 3243+00 42.99 45.99 45.99 40.74 3295+00 46.31 49.31 49.31 43.12 3244+00 43.14 46.14 46.14 40.84 3296+00 46.36 49.36 49.36 43.17 3245+00 43.29 46.29 46.29 40.93 3297+00 46.40 49.40 49.40 43.22 3246+00 43.45 46.45 46.45 41.03 3298+00 46.45 49.45 49.45 43.27 3247+00 43.50 46.50 46.50 41.07 3299+00 46.49 49.49 49.49 43.32 3248+00 43.55 46.55 46.55 41.11 3300+00 46.56 49.56 49.56 43.38 3249+00 43.60 46.60 46.60 41.15 3301+00 46.65 49.65 49.65 43.44 3250+00 43.65 46.65 46.65 41.19 3302+00 46.74 49.74 49.74 43.51 3251+00 43.66 46.66 46.66 41.20 3303+00 46.82 49.82 49.82 43.57 3252+00 43.64 46.64 46.64 41.18 3304+00 46.91 49.91 49.91 43.63 3253+00 43.62 46.62 46.62 41.17 3305+00 46.95 49.95 49.95 43.67 3254+00 43.60 46.60 46.60 41.15 3306+00 46.98 49.98 49.98 43.70 3255+00 43.60 46.60 46.60 41.15 3307+00 47.01 50.01 50.01 43.73 3256+00 43.63 46.63 46.63 41.17 3308+00 47.04 50.04 50.04 43.76 3257+00 43.66 46.66 46.66 41.18 3309+00 47.08 50.08 50.08 43.79 3258+00 43.69 46.69 46.69 41.20 3310+00 47.11 50.11 50.11 43.82 3259+00 43.73 46.73 46.73 41.22 3311+00 47.15 50.15 50.15 43.85 D-4
Table D-1. ULDC Hydraulic Parameter Profiles, American River North Levee (cont.) Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
SVRP
(feet)
Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
SVRP
(feet)
3312+00 47.19 50.19 50.19 43.88 3364+00 48.70 51.70 51.70 45.16 3313+00 47.23 50.23 50.23 43.92 3365+00 48.67 51.67 51.67 45.15 3314+00 47.27 50.27 50.27 43.95 3366+00 48.64 51.64 51.64 45.13 3315+00 47.31 50.31 50.31 43.98 3367+00 48.61 51.61 51.61 45.12 3316+00 47.32 50.32 50.32 43.99 3368+00 48.58 51.58 51.58 45.10 3317+00 47.33 50.33 50.33 43.99 3369+00 48.55 51.55 51.55 45.08 3318+00 47.33 50.33 50.33 44.00 3370+00 48.52 51.52 51.52 45.07 3319+00 47.34 50.34 50.34 44.01 3371+00 48.49 51.49 51.49 45.05 3320+00 47.35 50.35 50.35 44.01 3372+00 48.47 51.47 51.47 45.03 3321+00 47.34 50.34 50.34 44.01 3373+00 48.44 51.44 51.44 45.02 3322+00 47.33 50.33 50.33 44.00 3374+00 48.42 51.42 51.42 45.02 3323+00 47.32 50.32 50.32 44.00 3375+00 48.54 51.54 51.54 45.11 3324+00 47.31 50.31 50.31 43.99 3376+00 48.59 51.59 51.59 45.13 3325+00 47.30 50.30 50.30 43.99 3377+00 48.67 51.67 51.67 45.20 3326+00 47.30 50.30 50.30 43.98 3378+00 48.75 51.75 51.75 45.27 3327+00 47.32 50.32 50.32 44.00 3379+00 48.83 51.83 51.83 45.35 3328+00 47.33 50.33 50.33 44.01 3380+00 48.91 51.91 51.91 45.42 3329+00 47.35 50.35 50.35 44.03 3381+00 48.99 51.99 51.99 45.49 3330+00 47.36 50.36 50.36 44.04 3382+00 49.07 52.07 52.07 45.56 3331+00 47.36 50.36 50.36 44.04 3383+00 49.15 52.15 52.15 45.63 3332+00 47.36 50.36 50.36 44.05 3384+00 49.23 52.23 52.23 45.70 3333+00 47.37 50.37 50.37 44.05 3385+00 49.30 52.30 52.30 45.77 3334+00 47.39 50.39 50.39 44.07 3386+00 49.34 52.34 52.34 45.82 3335+00 47.42 50.42 50.42 44.10 3387+00 49.39 52.39 52.39 45.87 3336+00 47.45 50.45 50.45 44.13 3388+00 49.43 52.43 52.43 45.92 3337+00 47.49 50.49 50.49 44.16 3389+00 49.48 52.48 52.48 45.97 3338+00 47.52 50.52 50.52 44.19 3390+00 49.52 52.52 52.52 46.02 3339+00 47.50 50.50 50.50 44.17 3391+00 49.57 52.57 52.57 46.07 3340+00 47.47 50.47 50.47 44.15 3392+00 49.62 52.62 52.62 46.12 3341+00 47.45 50.45 50.45 44.14 3393+00 49.66 52.66 52.66 46.17 3342+00 47.42 50.42 50.42 44.12 3394+00 49.71 52.71 52.71 46.22 3343+00 47.41 50.41 50.41 44.11 3395+00 49.79 52.79 52.79 46.29 3344+00 47.47 50.47 50.47 44.16 3396+00 49.90 52.90 52.90 46.39 3345+00 47.53 50.53 50.53 44.21 3397+00 50.01 53.01 53.01 46.48 3346+00 47.58 50.58 50.58 44.26 3398+00 50.12 53.12 53.12 46.57 3347+00 47.64 50.64 50.64 44.31 3399+00 50.22 53.22 53.22 46.66 3348+00 47.70 50.70 50.70 44.36 3400+00 50.26 53.26 53.26 46.69 3349+00 47.76 50.76 50.76 44.41 3401+00 50.30 53.30 53.30 46.72 3350+00 47.81 50.81 50.81 44.46 3402+00 50.34 53.34 53.34 46.75 3351+00 47.86 50.86 50.86 44.50 3403+00 50.38 53.38 53.38 46.78 3352+00 47.92 50.92 50.92 44.55 3404+00 50.40 53.40 53.40 46.82 3353+00 47.97 50.97 50.97 44.59 3405+00 50.42 53.42 53.42 46.87 3354+00 48.04 51.04 51.04 44.65 3406+00 50.44 53.44 53.44 46.91 3355+00 48.11 51.11 51.11 44.70 3407+00 50.45 53.45 53.45 46.96 3356+00 48.18 51.18 51.18 44.75 3408+00 50.51 53.51 53.51 47.02 3357+00 48.25 51.25 51.25 44.81 3409+00 50.58 53.58 53.58 47.09 3358+00 48.32 51.32 51.32 44.86 3410+00 50.65 53.65 53.65 47.16 3359+00 48.39 51.39 51.39 44.92 3411+00 50.72 53.72 53.72 47.22 3360+00 48.46 51.46 51.46 44.97 3412+00 50.79 53.79 53.79 47.28 3361+00 48.53 51.53 51.53 45.02 3413+00 50.85 53.85 53.85 47.34 3362+00 48.59 51.59 51.59 45.08 3414+00 50.91 53.91 53.91 47.40 3363+00 48.66 51.66 51.66 45.13 3415+00 50.96 53.96 53.96 47.46 D-5
Table D-1. ULDC Hydraulic Parameter Profiles, American River North Levee (cont.) Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
SVRP
(feet)
Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
SVRP
(feet)
3416+00 51.02 54.02 54.02 47.51 3468+00 53.04 56.04 56.04 49.16 3417+00 51.08 54.08 54.08 47.55 3469+00 53.03 56.03 56.03 49.15 3418+00 51.13 54.13 54.13 47.59 3470+00 53.02 56.02 56.02 49.15 3419+00 51.18 54.18 54.18 47.63 3471+00 53.01 56.01 56.01 49.15 3420+00 51.23 54.23 54.23 47.67 3472+00 53.00 56.00 56.00 49.14 3421+00 51.30 54.30 54.30 47.72 3473+00 52.99 55.99 55.99 49.14 3422+00 51.38 54.38 54.38 47.77 3474+00 52.99 55.99 55.99 49.14 3423+00 51.45 54.45 54.45 47.82 3475+00 52.99 55.99 55.99 49.14 3424+00 51.53 54.53 54.53 47.87 3476+00 52.98 55.98 55.98 49.14 3425+00 51.63 54.63 54.63 47.95 3477+00 52.98 55.98 55.98 49.14 3426+00 51.77 54.77 54.77 48.05 3478+00 52.98 55.98 55.98 49.14 3427+00 51.90 54.90 54.90 48.15 3479+00 52.98 55.98 55.98 49.15 3428+00 52.04 55.04 55.04 48.26 3480+00 52.98 55.98 55.98 49.15 3429+00 52.13 55.13 55.13 48.33 3481+00 52.97 55.97 55.97 49.15 3430+00 52.14 55.14 55.14 48.33 3482+00 52.97 55.97 55.97 49.15 3431+00 52.14 55.14 55.14 48.33 3483+00 52.97 55.97 55.97 49.15 3432+00 52.17 55.17 55.17 48.35 3484+00 52.98 55.98 55.98 49.16 3433+00 52.21 55.21 55.21 48.39 3485+00 52.99 55.99 55.99 49.17 3434+00 52.26 55.26 55.26 48.43 3486+00 53.01 56.01 56.01 49.18 3435+00 52.30 55.30 55.30 48.47 3487+00 53.02 56.02 56.02 49.20 3436+00 52.34 55.34 55.34 48.50 3488+00 53.03 56.03 56.03 49.21 3437+00 52.39 55.39 55.39 48.54 3489+00 53.04 56.04 56.04 49.22 3438+00 52.43 55.43 55.43 48.58 3490+00 53.06 56.06 56.06 49.23 3439+00 52.47 55.47 55.47 48.62 3491+00 53.07 56.07 56.07 49.24 3440+00 52.52 55.52 55.52 48.66 3492+00 53.08 56.08 56.08 49.26 3441+00 52.56 55.56 55.56 48.69 3493+00 53.10 56.10 56.10 49.27 3442+00 52.58 55.58 55.58 48.71 3494+00 53.12 56.12 56.12 49.27 3443+00 52.60 55.60 55.60 48.73 3495+00 53.14 56.14 56.14 49.28 3444+00 52.62 55.62 55.62 48.75 3496+00 53.17 56.17 56.17 49.29 3445+00 52.64 55.64 55.64 48.77 3497+00 53.19 56.19 56.19 49.29 3446+00 52.66 55.66 55.66 48.79 3498+00 53.21 56.21 56.21 49.30 3447+00 52.68 55.68 55.68 48.80 3499+00 53.24 56.24 56.24 49.31 3448+00 52.70 55.70 55.70 48.82 3500+00 53.26 56.26 56.26 49.31 3449+00 52.72 55.72 55.72 48.84 3501+00 53.34 56.34 56.34 49.40 3450+00 52.73 55.73 55.73 48.86 3502+00 53.46 56.46 56.46 49.54 3451+00 52.75 55.75 55.75 48.87 3503+00 53.58 56.58 56.58 49.68 3452+00 52.77 55.77 55.77 48.89 3504+00 53.70 56.70 56.70 49.82 3453+00 52.79 55.79 55.79 48.91 3505+00 53.72 56.72 56.72 49.86 3454+00 52.81 55.81 55.81 48.93 3506+00 53.68 56.68 56.68 49.84 3455+00 52.83 55.83 55.83 48.95 3507+00 53.64 56.64 56.64 49.83 3456+00 52.86 55.86 55.86 48.97 3508+00 53.61 56.61 56.61 49.81 3457+00 52.88 55.88 55.88 48.99 3509+00 53.73 56.73 56.73 49.91 3458+00 52.90 55.90 55.90 49.01 3510+00 53.94 56.94 56.94 50.06 3459+00 52.92 55.92 55.92 49.04 3511+00 54.15 57.15 57.15 50.22 3460+00 52.95 55.95 55.95 49.06 3512+00 54.34 57.34 57.34 50.38 3461+00 52.97 55.97 55.97 49.08 3513+00 54.51 57.51 57.51 50.55 3462+00 52.99 55.99 55.99 49.10 3514+00 54.67 57.67 57.67 50.72 3463+00 53.01 56.01 56.01 49.12 3515+00 54.80 57.80 57.80 50.85 3464+00 53.04 56.04 56.04 49.14 3516+00 54.85 57.85 57.85 50.89 3465+00 53.06 56.06 56.06 49.16 3517+00 54.90 57.90 57.90 50.94 3466+00 53.06 56.06 56.06 49.17 3518+00 55.04 58.04 58.04 51.09 3467+00 53.05 56.05 56.05 49.16 3519+00 55.15 58.15 58.15 51.21 D-6
Table D-1. ULDC Hydraulic Parameter Profiles, American River North Levee (cont.) Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
SVRP
(feet)
Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
SVRP
(feet)
3520+00 55.21 58.21 58.21 51.29 3552+00 57.20 60.20 60.20 54.90 3521+00 55.28 58.28 58.28 51.38 3553+00 57.29 60.29 60.29 55.03 3522+00 55.35 58.35 58.35 51.45 3554+00 57.38 60.38 60.38 55.17 3523+00 55.40 58.40 58.40 51.52 3555+00 57.47 60.47 60.47 55.30 3524+00 55.47 58.47 58.47 51.60 3556+00 57.56 60.56 60.56 55.44 3525+00 55.47 58.47 58.47 51.63 3557+00 57.64 60.64 60.64 55.57 3526+00 55.49 58.49 58.49 51.66 3558+00 57.74 60.74 60.74 55.68 3527+00 55.52 58.52 58.52 51.70 3559+00 57.85 60.85 60.85 55.79 3528+00 55.60 58.60 58.60 51.81 3560+00 57.95 60.95 60.95 55.90 3529+00 55.69 58.69 58.69 51.94 3561+00 58.05 61.05 61.05 56.01 3530+00 55.82 58.82 58.82 52.15 3562+00 58.15 61.15 61.15 56.12 3531+00 55.92 58.92 58.92 52.31 3563+00 58.21 61.21 61.21 56.20 3532+00 56.00 59.00 59.00 52.41 3564+00 58.24 61.24 61.24 56.26 3533+00 56.09 59.09 59.09 52.52 3565+00 58.26 61.26 61.26 56.32 3534+00 56.20 59.20 59.20 52.65 3566+00 58.34 61.34 61.34 56.42 3535+00 56.30 59.30 59.30 52.78 3567+00 58.49 61.49 61.49 56.58 3536+00 56.35 59.35 59.35 52.85 3568+00 58.64 61.64 61.64 56.74 3537+00 56.40 59.40 59.40 52.92 3569+00 58.79 61.79 61.79 56.89 3538+00 56.47 59.47 59.47 53.03 3570+00 58.95 61.95 61.95 57.03 3539+00 56.54 59.54 59.54 53.14 3571+00 59.11 62.11 62.11 57.17 3540+00 56.62 59.62 59.62 53.24 3572+00 59.27 62.27 62.27 57.31 3541+00 56.66 59.66 59.66 53.32 3573+00 59.43 62.43 62.43 57.45 3542+00 56.69 59.69 59.69 53.38 3574+00 59.57 62.57 62.57 57.58 3543+00 56.71 59.71 59.71 53.44 3575+00 59.65 62.65 62.65 57.69 3544+00 56.74 59.74 59.74 53.52 3576+00 59.73 62.73 62.73 57.79 3545+00 56.76 59.76 59.76 53.63 3577+00 59.82 62.82 62.82 57.90 3546+00 56.78 59.78 59.78 53.75 3578+00 59.90 62.90 62.90 58.00 3547+00 56.80 59.80 59.80 53.86 3579+00 59.98 62.98 62.98 58.11 3548+00 56.76 59.76 59.76 53.99 3580+00 60.14 63.14 63.14 58.21 3549+00 56.73 59.73 59.73 54.14 3581+00 60.29 63.29 63.29 58.31 3550+00 56.87 59.87 59.87 54.39 3582+00 60.45 63.45 63.45 58.42 3551+00 57.04 60.04 60.04 54.66 3582+80 60.58 63.58 63.58 58.50 D-7
Table D-2. ULDC Hydraulic Parameter Profiles, Arcade Creek South Levee Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
4000+00 37.10 40.10 40.10 4037+00 37.77 40.77 40.77 4074+00 38.48 41.48 41.48 4001+00 37.44 40.44 40.44 4038+00 37.78 40.78 40.78 4075+00 38.50 41.50 41.50 4002+00 37.53 40.53 40.53 4039+00 37.78 40.78 40.78 4076+00 38.52 41.52 41.52 4003+00 37.63 40.63 40.63 4040+00 37.78 40.78 40.78 4077+00 38.54 41.54 41.54 4004+00 37.64 40.64 40.64 4041+00 37.78 40.78 40.78 4078+00 38.56 41.56 41.56 4005+00 37.64 40.64 40.64 4042+00 37.78 40.78 40.78 4079+00 38.58 41.58 41.58 4006+00 37.65 40.65 40.65 4043+00 37.79 40.79 40.79 4080+00 38.60 41.60 41.60 4007+00 37.65 40.65 40.65 4044+00 37.79 40.79 40.79 4081+00 38.64 41.64 41.64 4008+00 37.66 40.66 40.66 4045+00 37.79 40.79 40.79 4082+00 38.67 41.67 41.67 4009+00 37.66 40.66 40.66 4046+00 37.79 40.79 40.79 4083+00 38.70 41.70 41.70 4010+00 37.66 40.66 40.66 4047+00 37.80 40.80 40.80 4084+00 38.74 41.74 41.74 4011+00 37.67 40.67 40.67 4048+00 37.80 40.80 40.80 4085+00 38.80 41.80 41.80 4012+00 37.67 40.67 40.67 4049+00 37.81 40.81 40.81 4086+00 38.87 41.87 41.87 4013+00 37.67 40.67 40.67 4050+00 37.81 40.81 40.81 4087+00 38.95 41.95 41.95 4014+00 37.67 40.67 40.67 4051+00 37.82 40.82 40.82 4088+00 39.02 42.02 42.02 4015+00 37.67 40.67 40.67 4052+00 37.82 40.82 40.82 4089+00 39.10 42.10 42.10 4016+00 37.68 40.68 40.68 4053+00 37.83 40.83 40.83 4090+00 39.16 42.16 42.16 4017+00 37.68 40.68 40.68 4054+00 37.85 40.85 40.85 4091+00 39.22 42.22 42.22 4018+00 37.68 40.68 40.68 4055+00 37.86 40.86 40.86 4092+00 39.28 42.28 42.28 4019+00 37.68 40.68 40.68 4056+00 37.88 40.88 40.88 4093+00 39.33 42.33 42.33 4020+00 37.68 40.68 40.68 4057+00 37.89 40.89 40.89 4094+00 39.39 42.39 42.38 4021+00 37.69 40.69 40.69 4058+00 37.90 40.90 40.90 4095+00 39.43 42.43 42.38 4022+00 37.69 40.69 40.69 4059+00 37.91 40.91 40.91 4096+00 39.46 42.46 42.38 4023+00 37.69 40.69 40.69 4060+00 37.92 40.92 40.92 4097+00 39.48 42.48 42.38 4024+00 37.69 40.69 40.69 4061+00 37.92 40.92 40.92 4098+00 39.51 42.51 42.38 4025+00 37.70 40.70 40.70 4062+00 37.93 40.93 40.93 4099+00 39.54 42.54 42.39 4026+00 37.70 40.70 40.70 4063+00 37.93 40.93 40.93 4100+00 39.70 42.70 42.41 4027+00 37.71 40.71 40.71 4064+00 37.92 40.92 40.92 4101+00 39.96 42.96 42.44 4028+00 37.71 40.71 40.71 4065+00 38.07 41.07 41.07 4102+00 40.21 43.21 42.47 4029+00 37.71 40.71 40.71 4066+00 38.12 41.12 41.12 4103+00 40.47 43.47 42.50 4030+00 37.72 40.72 40.72 4067+00 38.13 41.13 41.13 4104+00 40.73 43.73 42.54 4031+00 37.74 40.74 40.74 4068+00 38.14 41.14 41.14 4105+00 40.95 43.95 42.57 4032+00 37.74 40.74 40.74 4069+00 38.34 41.34 41.34 4106+00 41.12 44.12 42.60 4033+00 37.74 40.74 40.74 4070+00 38.37 41.37 41.37 4107+00 41.30 44.30 42.63 4034+00 37.74 40.74 40.74 4071+00 38.39 41.39 41.39 4108+00 41.47 44.47 42.66 4035+00 37.74 40.74 40.74 4072+00 38.42 41.42 41.42 4109+00 41.65 44.65 42.69 4036+00 37.73 40.73 40.73 4073+00 38.45 41.45 41.45 4110+00 41.82 44.82 42.73 D-8
Table D-3. ULDC Hydraulic Parameter Profiles, NEMDC East Levee Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
Levee
Station
(feet)
DWSE
(feet)
MTOL
(feet)
HTOL
(feet)
2986+49 35.64 38.64 38.64 3020+00 36.29 39.29 39.29
2987+00 35.65 38.65 38.65 3021+00 36.32 39.32 39.32
2988+00 35.69 38.69 38.69 3022+00 36.39 39.39 39.39
2989+00 35.72 38.72 38.72 3023+00 36.44 39.44 39.44
2990+00 35.73 38.73 38.73 3024+00 36.46 39.46 39.46
2991+00 35.74 38.74 38.74 3025+00 36.49 39.49 39.49
2992+00 35.76 38.76 38.76 3026+00 36.52 39.52 39.52
2993+00 35.77 38.77 38.77 3027+00 36.55 39.55 39.55
2994+00 35.78 38.78 38.78 3028+00 36.57 39.57 39.57
2995+00 35.80 38.80 38.80 3029+00 36.60 39.60 39.60
2996+00 35.81 38.81 38.81 3030+00 36.63 39.63 39.63
2997+00 35.82 38.82 38.82 3031+00 36.65 39.65 39.65
2998+00 35.84 38.84 38.84 3032+00 36.67 39.67 39.67
2999+00 35.85 38.85 38.85 3033+00 36.70 39.70 39.70
3000+00 35.86 38.86 38.86 3034+00 36.72 39.72 39.72
3001+00 35.92 38.92 38.92 3035+00 36.74 39.74 39.74
3002+00 35.93 38.93 38.93 3036+00 36.77 39.77 39.77
3003+00 35.94 38.94 38.94 3037+00 36.79 39.79 39.79
3004+00 35.95 38.95 38.95 3038+00 36.82 39.82 39.82
3005+00 35.96 38.96 38.96 3039+00 36.85 39.85 39.85
3006+00 35.96 38.96 38.96 3040+00 36.87 39.87 39.87
3007+00 35.97 38.97 38.97 3041+00 36.90 39.90 39.90
3008+00 35.99 38.99 38.99 3042+00 36.93 39.93 39.93
3009+00 36.02 39.02 39.02 3043+00 36.95 39.95 39.95
3010+00 36.05 39.05 39.05 3044+00 36.98 39.98 39.98
3011+00 36.08 39.08 39.08 3045+00 36.99 39.99 39.99
3012+00 36.11 39.11 39.11 3046+00 37.01 40.01 40.01
3013+00 36.14 39.14 39.14 3047+00 37.03 40.03 40.03
3014+00 36.17 39.17 39.17 3048+00 37.05 40.05 40.05
3015+00 36.20 39.20 39.20 3049+00 37.06 40.06 40.06
3016+00 36.22 39.22 39.22 3050+00 37.08 40.08 40.08
3017+00 36.24 39.24 39.24 3051+00 37.10 40.10 40.10
3018+00 36.26 39.26 39.26 3051+61 37.10 40.10 40.10
3019+00 36.28 39.28 39.28

WSE Condition
Calculated
Gradient WSE Analysis Type Condition
Calculated
Factor of
Safety Mitigation Notes:

Report Reference #
(See Sheet 1)
Right Bank Jacob Lane -- 160 kcfs + 1.5' Existing Condition 0.35 160 kcfs + 1.5' Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.4-1.6 -- 4Right Bank NEMDC Extension 155+20 192 kcfs Existing Condition 0.5 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.34 -- 18Right Bank NEMDC Extension 155+20 192 kcfs With Mitigation 0.19 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.49 Cutoff Wall 18Right Bank NEMDC Extension 147+00 192 kcfs Existing Condition 0.71 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.27 -- 18Right Bank NEMDC Extension 147+00 192 kcfs With Mitigation 0.48 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.42 Cutoff Wall 18Right Bank NEMDC Extension 140+00 192 kcfs Existing Condition 0.48 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.87 -- 18Right Bank NEMDC Extension 140+00 192 kcfs With Mitigation 0.42 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.92 Cutoff Wall 18Right Bank NEMDC North 168+60 192 kcfs Existing Condition 0.71 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.1 -- 15Right Bank NEMDC North 168+60 192 kcfs With Mitigation 0.1 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.42 Cutoff Wall 15Right Bank NEMDC North 183+40 192 kcfs Existing Condition 0.23 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.12 -- 15Right Bank NEMDC North 183+40 192 kcfs With Mitigation 0.2 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.44 Cutoff Wall 15Right Bank NEMDC North 192+00 192 kcfs Existing Condition 0.19 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.22 -- 15Right Bank NEMDC North 192+00 192 kcfs With Mitigation 0.18 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.49 Cutoff Wall 15Right Bank NEMDC North 201+80 192 kcfs Existing Condition 0.12 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.12 -- 15Right Bank NEMDC North 201+80 192 kcfs With Mitigation 0.13 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.48 Cutoff Wall 15Right Bank Other 0+685 150 kcfs Existing Condition 0.56 -- -- -- -- -- 1Right Bank Other 0+685 200 kcfs With Mitigation 0.33 -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 1Right Bank Other 3+421 150 kcfs Existing Condition 0.39 -- -- -- -- -- 1Right Bank Other 3+421 200 kcfs With Mitigation 0.33 -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 1Right Bank Other 6+819 150 kcfs Existing Condition 1.13 -- -- -- -- -- 1Right Bank Other 6+819 200 kcfs With Mitigation 0.32 -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 1Right Bank Other 9+050 150 kcfs Existing Condition 0.64 -- -- -- -- -- 1Right Bank Other 9+050 200 kcfs With Mitigation 0.01 -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 1Right Bank Other 10+311 150 kcfs Existing Condition 0.44 -- -- -- -- -- 1Right Bank Other 10+311 200 kcfs With Mitigation 0.34 -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 1Right Bank Other 12+139 150 kcfs Existing Condition 0.44 -- -- -- -- -- 1Right Bank Other 12+139 200 kcfs With Mitigation 0.13 -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 1Right Bank Other 14+898 150 kcfs Existing Condition 0.99 -- -- -- -- -- 1Right Bank Other 14+898 200 kcfs With Mitigation 0.01 -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 1Right Bank Other 15+999 150 kcfs Existing Condition 0.75 -- -- -- -- -- 1Right Bank Other 15+999 200 kcfs With Mitigation 0.01 -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 1Right Bank Other 18+153 150 kcfs Existing Condition 0.66 -- -- -- -- -- 1Right Bank Other 18+153 200 kcfs With Mitigation - -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 1Right Bank Other 19+837 150 kcfs Existing Condition 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- 1Right Bank Other 19+837 200 kcfs With Mitigation - -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 1Right Bank Other 20+718 150 kcfs Existing Condition 0.23 -- -- -- -- -- 1Right Bank Other 20+718 200 kcfs With Mitigation - -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 1Right Bank Other -- 160 kcfs + 1.5' With Mitigation meets criteria 160 kcfs + 1.5' Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation meets criteria Cutoff Wall Near Howe Ave 3Right Bank R1 -- 160 kcfs + 1.5' Existing Condition 0.43 160 kcfs + 1.5' Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.13 -- 8Right Bank R1 -- 192 kcfs Existing Condition 0.44 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.06 -- 8Right Bank R1 -- 160 kcfs + 1.5' With Mitigation 0.43 160 kcfs + 1.5' Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.51 Cutoff Wall 8Right Bank R1 -- 192 kcfs With Mitigation 0.44 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.51 Cutoff Wall 8Right Bank R10 -- DWSE Existing Condition 0.97 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.43 -- 16Right Bank R10 -- EEWSE Existing Condition 1.19 -- -- -- -- -- 16Right Bank R10 -- DWSE With Mitigation <0.1 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 2.53 -- 16Right Bank R10 -- EEWSE With Mitigation <0.1 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 2.54 -- 16Right Bank R1A 6+464 160 kcfs + 1.5' Existing Condition 0.26 160 kcfs + 1.5' Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.17-1.51 -- 5Right Bank R1A 6+464 200 kcfs +2' With Mitigation -- 200 kcfs +2' Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation meets criteria Cutoff Wall 5Right Bank R2 -- DWSE Existing Condition <0.10 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.43 -- 19Right Bank R2 -- EEWSE Existing Condition <0.10 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.41 -- 19Right Bank R2 -- DWSE Existing Condition 0.09 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.54 -- 16Right Bank R2 -- EEWSE Existing Condition 0.09 -- -- -- -- -- 16Right Bank R3 7+945 160 kcfs + 1.5' Existing Condition 0.05 -- -- -- -- -- 5Right Bank R3 8+000 160 kcfs + 1.5' Existing Condition 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- 5Right Bank R3A 258+50 DWSE Existing Condition 0.05 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.23 None 12Right Bank R3A 258+50 EEWSE Existing Condition 0.06 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.21 None 12Right Bank R3A 258+50 DWSE With Mitigation 0.32 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.4 Cutoff Wall 12Right Bank R3A 258+50 EEWSE With Mitigation 0.34 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.37 Cutoff Wall 12Right Bank R3A -- DWSE Existing Condition 0.74 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.27 -- gradient at toe of berm 13Right Bank R3A -- EEWSE Existing Condition 0.77 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.27 -- gradient at toe of berm 13Right Bank R3A -- DWSE With Mitigation 0.21 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.45 Cutoff Wall gradient at toe of berm 13 Other Information
American River Summary of Analysis Results - Right Bank Seepage Analysis Stability Analysis
Location Site Station
Right Bank R3A -- EEWSE With Mitigation 0.22 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.45 Cutoff Wall gradient at toe of berm 13 Right Bank R4 10+190 160 kcfs + 1.5' Existing Condition 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- 5 Right Bank R4 10+295 160 kcfs + 1.5' Existing Condition 1.2 -- -- -- -- -- 5 Right Bank R4 10+295 200 kcfs +2' With Mitigation 0.3 -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 5Right Bank R5 -- 160 kcfs + 1.5' Existing Condition 0.4 160 kcfs + 1.5' Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.37 -- 9Right Bank R5 -- 192 kcfs Existing Condition 0.44 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.28 -- 9Right Bank R5 -- 160 kcfs + 1.5' With Mitigation 0.32 -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 9Right Bank R5 -- 192 kcfs With Mitigation 0.36 -- -- -- -- Cutoff Wall 9Right Bank R5 -- 160 kcfs + 1.5' Existing Condition 0.4 160 kcfs + 1.5' Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.37 -- 9Right Bank R5 -- 192 kcfs Existing Condition 0.44 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.28 -- 9 Right Bank R5 -- 160 kcfs + 1.5' With Mitigation 0.24 160 kcfs + 1.5' Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.61 Jet Grout Wall 9 Right Bank R5 -- 192 kcfs With Mitigation 0.29 192 kcfs Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.61 Jet Grout Wall 9Right Bank R6 -- DWSE Existing Condition 0.85 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.3 -- 11Right Bank R6 -- EEWSE Existing Condition 0.94 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.25 -- 11Right Bank R6 -- DWSE With Mitigation <0.10 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.47 Cutoff Wall 11Right Bank R6 -- EEWSE With Mitigation <0.10 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.47 Cutoff Wall 11Right Bank R7 -- DWSE Existing Condition 0.59 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 0.92 -- 13Right Bank R7 -- EEWSE Existing Condition 0.63 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 0.77 -- 13Right Bank R7 -- DWSE With Mitigation 0.25 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.9 Cutoff Wall 13Right Bank R7 -- EEWSE With Mitigation 0.27 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.84 Cutoff Wall 13Right Bank R8 -- DWSE Existing Condition 0.65 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 0.98 -- 7Right Bank R8 -- EEWSE Existing Condition 0.77 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 0.89 -- 7Right Bank R8 -- DWSE With Mitigation 0 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.63 Cutoff Wall 7Right Bank R8 -- EEWSE With Mitigation 0 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage With Mitigation 1.63 Cutoff Wall 7Right Bank R9 -- DWSE Existing Condition 0.41 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.44 -- 19Right Bank R9 -- EEWSE Existing Condition 0.46 EEWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.3 -- 19Right Bank R9 -- DWSE Existing Condition 0.37 DWSE Case III: Steady State Seepage Existing Condition 1.59 -- 16Right Bank R9 -- EEWSE Existing Condition 0.43 -- -- -- -- -- 16 Report # Report Year Report Name
1 1997
(USACE, 1997) Lower American River Levee Project Basis of Design for Levee Remediation. 25 July 1997.
2 1999
(URS, 1999) Design Analysis 100% Submittal, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening. April 16, 1999. 3 2000
(USACE, 2000) Geotechnical Report on: American River Watershed Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features Lower American River Sites. August 2000. 4 2001
(USACE, 2001) Geotechnical Report, American River Watershed, Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features, Reevaluation of Right Bank Near Jacob's Lane. November 2001. 5 2003 (Common Features), California, Levee Strengthening, Alternative Methods Contract A. 26 6 2006
(USACE, 2006) Interim Mayhew Levee Raise Design & Construction Support Documentation. December 2006.
7 2009
(HDR, 2009) Remediation Methods Report, American River Common Features, WRDA96 Remaining Sites, Phase 2, Sites L8, R8, and L9A, Sacramento County, California, Draft.

November 10, 2009.
8 2009
(USACE, 2009a) Design Documentation Report, WRDA 1996 Remaining Sites, Site R1.

August 2009.
9 2009
(USACE, 2009b) Design Documentation Report, WRDA 1996 Remaining Sites, Site R5.

August 2009.
10 2009
(USACE, 2009c) Design Documentation Report, WRDA 1996 Remaining Sites, Site L12.

August 2009.
11 2011
(USACE, 2011) Geotechnical Design Documentation Report, WRDA 1996 Remaining Sites, Site R6. July 2011.
12 2012
(HDR, 2012) American River Common Features - Site R3A Alternative Remediation, Additional Analysis of Extended Cutoff Wall. October 12, 2012. 13 2012
(HDR, Fugro, WLA, 2012) Remediation Methods Report, Sites L7, L10, L13, R3A, and R7, American River Common Features WRDA96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites. January 2012. 14 -- Not used
15 2012
(Kleinfelder-Geomatrix JV, 2012) Final Design Document Report, American River Common Features, American River North Levee, River Mile 2.0 to 3.6, Sacramento County, California. August 20, 2012.
16 2012
(USACE, 2012) Remediation Methods Report, WRDA 1996 Phaes III Remaining Sites L3, L9, R2, R9, and R10, American River Watershed Common Features Project. June 2012. 17 2013
(HDR, Fugro, LWA, 2013) Remediation Methods Report, Sites L1 and L5, American River Common Features, WRDA96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Sacramento, California. September 20, 2013.
18 2014
(USACE, 2014a) American River Common Features - Natomas East Main Drainage Channel (NEMDC) Extension, 100% Supplemental Design Documentation Report. San Francisco District. February 2014.
19 2014
(USACE, 2014b) WRDA 1996/1999 Remaining Sites, Engineering Evalation of No Action Sites L1, L3, L5, R2, R9, RM 2.7L, and RM 3.15L Techincal Memorandum. April 2014.

American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 1 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 2 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 3 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 4 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 5 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 6 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 7 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 8 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 9 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 10 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 11 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 12 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 13 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 14 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 15 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 16 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 17 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx American River North Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 18 of 18 R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\ULOP\ULDC Cert - American North Basin\7.8 Levee Geometry\Cross-sections\ARN Levee Geometry - ULDC Feb 2024.docx

ULDC References
(DWR, 2012). Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC). State of California Department of Water Resources. May 2012.
(MBK, 2024a). American River North Levee System- Determination of the Urban Levee Design Criteria Design Water Surface Elevation, Minimum Top of Levee, and Hydraulic Top of Levee.

July 1, 2024.
(Psomas, 2024). O&M Right of Way Map, American River North Levee System. March 2024. (USACE, 2014). Untitled Letter. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento Corps of Engineers. (No date on Letter. Filing Date is June 5, 2014).

Appendix G.

American River North ULDC
O&M Review of Levees in Support of
FEMA and ULDC Certification
Water Resources  Flood Control  Water Rights
WALTER BOUREZ, III, P.E. FOUNDERS:

DON TRIEU, P.E.

DARREN CORDOVA, P.E. ANGUS NORMAN MURRAY
NATHAN HERSHEY, P.E., P.L.S. 1913-1985
LEE G. BERGFELD, P.E. JOSEPH I. BURNS
BEN TUSTISON, P.E. 1926-2021
THOMAS ENGLER, P.E., CFM DONALD E. KIENLEN, P.E.

MICHAEL MONCRIEF, P.E. 1930-2023

NICOLE ORTEGA-JEWELL, PMP
KYLE KNUTSON, P.E.

ANNE WILLIAMS, P.E.

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 22, 2024
TO: File
PREPARED BY: Tom Engler, P.E., MBK Engineers
SUBJECT: SAFCA American River North Levee System
Levee O&M Review in Support of FEMA and ULDC Certification On January 22, 2024, I reviewed the urban portion of the SAFCA American River North Basin levee system. This system consists of the American River North Levee, the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC) East Levee, and the Arcade Creek South Levee. The purpose of the inspection was to support the finding on levee system operation and maintenance (O&M) for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) certification and Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC) findings for the SAFCA American River North Basin levee system. FEMA’s criteria for operation plans and maintenance plans are documented in 44 CFR 65.10(c) and 44 CFR

65.10(d). The American River North Basin levee system is in compliance with the USACE Supplement to Standard Operation and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual), Sacramento River Flood Control Project, Unit No. 118 – Part No. 2. North Levee of American River, East Levee of Natomas Canal, Both Levees of Arcade Creek, South Levee of Linda Creek and Magpie Creek Diversion Channel, revised date 28 Jan 2023, and meets FEMA criteria. While the criteria FEMA uses are more general, relying on compliance with the O&M manual, the ULDC has specific requirements for both analyses and performance. These requirements are defined in Section 7.0 of the ULDC (DWR, May 2012), and include 20 major criteria in addition to those found in the O&M manual. Mead & Hunt evaluated the O&M manual with respect to ULDC and found it in compliance (Mead & Hunt, 2024a).

The following ULDC items were reviewed during this site visit:

7.10 Erosion

7.12 Encroachments

7.15 Animal Burrows

7.16 Levee Vegetation
To File February 22, 2024
Dry Creek North Levee O&M Review in Support of FEMA and ULDC Certification Page 2 This memorandum provides findings from record reviews and a physical site visit to support ULDC sections 7.10, 7.12, 7.15 and 7.16 listed above. The remaining criteria are being reviewed separately and will be documented in the report titled American North Levee System Due Diligence Review for ULDC Certification, prepared by Mead & Hunt.

MBK Engineers (MBK) performed an inspection during this site visit on January 22, 2024. No areas of erosion or rilling were identified on the levee slopes or within 15 feet of the levee toes.

There are no visible signs of burrowing rodent activity and, according to the American River Flood Control District, burrowing rodents are not currently a concern on the American River, NEMDC, or Arcade Creek levees. However, ARFCD actively monitors for signs of rodent activity and will implement their baiting and grouting program if necessary. In terms of vegetation, there is no woody vegetation located on or within 15 feet of the levee landside or waterside levee toes nor any on the slopes or crown of the American River north levee and NEMDC east levee, which exceeds ULDC requirements for the vegetation management zone (VMZ). However, woody vegetation in the form of a few large trees were observed along the Arcade Creek south levee upstream of Rio Linda Boulevard which are within the VMZ. These trees are randomly located near the toe of the levee and do not pose a concern for visibility and/or flood fighting. The ULDC requirements are consistent with the O&M manual. The VMZ is shown in the graphic below.

Figure 1. Vegetation Management Zone
The following notes were recorded:

All levees had good vegetative cover on both the land and waterside slopes, i.e., herbaceous groundcover per USACE and CVFPB standards. The patrol road is in good condition throughout. The landside toe corridor is free of undesirable vegetation along American River north levee, NEMDC east levee, and a majority of Arcade Creek south levee. However, along the Arcade Creek south levee upstream of Rio Linda Boulevard, a landside toe corridor is not present, while encroachments and vegetation are present at the landside toe. These observations are not considered a concern because (a) visibility into the backyards is present, (b) the high water events are short and do not remain elevated for long, and (c) the levee is relatively short To File February 22, 2024
Dry Creek North Levee O&M Review in Support of FEMA and ULDC Certification Page 3 and flood fighting can be accessed from the levee crest. Based on review of the O&M manual and observations from this site visit, the American River North Levee system meets both FEMA and ULDC requirements related to O&M.

Attachment 1 is the 2010 USACE Periodic Inspection (PI) Report. The PI does not identify any critical O&M issues. Attachment 2 is the 2023 USACE Routine Inspection (RI) Report (pending).

We understand this inspection was completed in February 2023, and the final report has not been issued yet. If this becomes available, it will be reviewed and attached.

This current levee site visit, along with review of the USACE 2010 PI are the basis for concluding that the urban portion of the American River North Basin Levee system meets both FEMA and ULDC requirements for O&M.
__________________________________
Tom Engler, P.E.

TE/oh
Attachments:
2010 USACE Periodic Inspection (PI) Report
2023 USACE Routine Inspection (RI) Report (Pending)
SAFCA American River North Levee System
Levee O&M Review in Support of FEMA and ULDC Certification Attachment 1

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento
Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
Sacramento, California 95814-2922

REPLY TO

ATTENTION OF
Operations and Readiness Branch
Mr. Jay Punia, Executive Officer
Central Valley Flood Protection Board
3310 El Camino Avenue, Room 151
Sacramento, CA 95821
Dear Mr. Punia:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is executing Periodic Inspections (PI) of the nation's flood risk reduction systems in accordance with Policy Guidance Letter- Periodic Inspection Procedures for the Levee Safety Program, dated December 17, 2008. Periodic Inspections of the flood risk reduction systems are conducted to verify proper operation and maintenance; evaluate operational adequacy and structural stability; identify features to monitor over time; and improve the ability to communicate the overall condition and safety. The attached Periodic Inspection Report, Addendum and Report Card serve as a summary of the findings of the Periodic Inspection.

A Periodic Inspection for the American River Flood Control District (FCD)- American River Right Bank, Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC) system was conducted between December 29, 2009 and February 8, 2010. The system is comprised of four segments.

Segment N arne
Unit 1, Arcade Creek left bank
Unit 2 south, NEMDC below Arcade Creek
Unit 3, American River right bank
Units 9 and 10, American River right bank - MA I 0
and 11
The system rating is determined based solely on the USACE inspection checklist. The PI rating will replace the annual routine inspection rating for this year, and consequently is used to determine the status of the system in the PL 84-99 Rehabilitation Program. However, due to the California's Central Valley Flood System Improvement Framework (Framework), the active vs. inactive status in the PL 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection Program is determined based on conditions set forth in the Framework. Based on observations made as part of the inspection, the - 2 -
American River FCD - American River Right Bank, NEMDC system is rated minimally acceptable because of a combination of unwanted vegetation growth, encroachments, slope stability, erosion/bank caving, animal control, and culverts/discharge pipes. These items should be monitored over time. The American River FCD- American River Right Bank, NEMDC system will remain active for PL 84-99 rehabilitation assistance.

The unwanted vegetation growth, encroachment, and culvert/discharge pipes items were determined to be unacceptable but an engineering determination concluded that these items would not prevent the system from performing as intended during the next flood event.

Unwanted vegetation growth and encroachment maintenance should be conducted in accordance with the Framework. A video inspection of the culverts/discharge pipes associated with the federally authorized pump stations and any maintenance necessary as a result ofthose inspections shall be completed no later than October 31, 20 11 to bring these items to at least a minimally acceptable condition. If the required repairs are not made within the timelines specified, the system will be rated unacceptable and inactive for PL84-99 rehabilitation assistance.

When inspecting encroachment items, it was assumed that the encroachments were unpermitted unless documentation was submitted by the sponsor, or was readily available in our files, to show otherwise. If an encroachment is 1) permitted by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB), 2) the Corps had no objection to the issuing of the permit and 3) it was constructed and is maintained in accordance with the permit, that encroachment will receive at least a minimally acceptable rating. Anything over, under, or through the levee and within the project easement, must have a valid CVFPB permit, must be annotated in project as-built drawings, or noted in the project Operations and Maintenance Manual.

If further information is available that documents correction of an issue; the completion of an interim repair; an issue is not within the sponsor/project easement; or an issue is a less critical concern, please provide documentation for USACE consideration. If a levee safety issue is outside the local sponsor easement, a correction should still be pursued. Neither the system rating nor status in PL 84-99 rehabilitation program will be adversely impacted by an issue outside of the project easement.

The findings associated with this periodic inspection have significant impacts to the protected community (or communities) and will be communicated to interested parties that include federal, state, and local branches of government. This inspection report does not imply a performance warranty from the USACE nor from its Architect/Engineer Contractor.

This USACE inspection rating represents an evaluation of operations and maintenance of the flood damage reduction system and may be used in conjunction with other information for a levee certification determination for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) purposes, if - 3 -
applicable. An acceptable or minimally acceptable Corps inspection rating, alone, does not equate to a certifiable levee for the NFIP.

We appreciate your interest in continuing to be a part of the PL 84-99 program. If you have any questions regarding this inspection or participation in the program, please contact Ryan Larson at (916) 557-7568 or Jesse Hogan at (916) 557-7178. A copy of this letter is being furnished to the Department of Water Resources Flood Operations Center, Sacramento County Office of Emergency Services, and FEMA Region IX as required by our regulations.

Sincerely,
~~ d/.~ Michael D. Mahoney, P.E.

Chief, Construction-Operations Division
Levee Safety Officer
AMERICAN RIVER Right Bank, NEMDC I CALIFORNIA

PERIODIC INSPECTION
REPORT N0.1
Prepared by:

GENTERRA/Hultgren-Tillis/TABER, LLC
Prepared for:

US Army Corps of Engineers®
Sacramento District
JANUARY 2010

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

PERIODIC INSPECTION REPORT

AMERICAN RIVER RIGHT BANK, NEMDC I CALIFORNIA

ARCADE CREEK, NEMDC, AMERICAN RIVER

SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
REPORT N0.1
Edwin M. Hultgren
Project Manager
April 13,2010
January 2010

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Wei-Ming Rick Chen
Lead Engineer
April 13, 2010

ADDENDUM
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System Inspection Report American River FCD- American River Right Bank, NEMDC Levee System
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is executing Periodic Inspections (PI) of the nation's flood risk reduction systems in accordance with Policy Guidance Letter- Periodic Inspection Procedures for the Levee Safety Program, dated December 17, 2008.

The US ACE Levee Safety Program mission is to assess the integrity and viability of flood risk reduction systems and recommend actions to assure that levee systems do not pose unacceptable risks to the public, property, and the environment. Periodic Inspections (Pis) of flood risk reduction systems are conducted to verify proper operation and maintenance; evaluate operational adequacy and structural stability; identify features to monitor over time; and improve the ability to communicate the overall condition.

The following system and segments were inspected as part of this periodic inspection.

Project Name American River FCD- American River Right Bank, NEMDC Levee System
National Levee Database NLD System ID: 5205000393
(NLD) System Identification
Segment Name NLD Segment ID Segment
Rating
Unit 1, Arcade Creek 5204000398 M left bank
Unit 2 south, NEMDC 5204000397 M below Arcade Creek
Unit 3, American 5204000393 M River right bank
Units 9 and 10,
American River right 5204000390 M
bank - MA 10 and 11
USACE Division/District South Pacific Division I Sacramento District USACE Assigned System Assigned Rating: Minimally Acceptable Rating*
·' .

USACE Assigned PL 84-99 Assigned Status: Active
Rehabilitation Status
Preparing Contractor Name Hultgren-Tillis Engineers
and Address 2221 Commerce Avenue, Suite A-1
Concord, California 94520
* System Rating is for continued Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP) eligibility and generally reflects operation and maintenance requirements. Since significant advancement of the geotechnical, structural, hydrologic, hydraulic, electrical, and mechanical engineering fields may have occurred since initial construction, the original design criteria, when available, has been reviewed and compared to current engineering standards and practice. Any engineering design criteria changes that may have occurred since the system was constructed are documented herein.

Continuing eligibility in the Rehabilitation Inspection Program (RIP) is not impacted by the design criteria review.

Maintenance deficiencies noted on the inspection checklist portion of the repm1 must be addressed by the appropriate local sponsor pursuant to specific item comments or the "General Instructions for the Inspection of Flood Damage Reduction Segments/Systems" as the normal routine inspection process would dictate. Transmittal of this document to the local sponsors constitutes notification of the inspection findings for the respective segments. Any noted timelines to address maintenance deficiencies for continuing eligibility are based on the transmittal date.

The Periodic Inspection has identified Items* rated "unacceptable" which require immediate correction, but the System was considered to perform as intended in the next flood event with historic levels of flood-fighting. The sponsors should ensure these corrections are performed in an expedient manner. *Refer to Appendix C.

The findings associated with this periodic inspection have significant impacts to the protected community (or communities) and will be communicated to interested parties that include federal, state, and local branches of government. This inspection report does not imply a performance warranty from the USACE nor from its Architect/Engineer Contractor.

Technical review was performed on this periodic inspection report in accordance with established policy, principles and procedures. This includes the Independent Technical Review and Quality Control/ Assurance Reviews accomplished by the Architect/Engineer Contractor and the Quality Control/Assurance Reviews by USACE.
2 ·' . '
By my signature, I certify that the USACE Sacramento District has completed this Periodic Inspection Report and it complies with USACE guidance. All review comments have been satisfactorily resolved and the report has been revised accordingly. cc:

CO-E
CO-OR
ED
ED-G
Michael
~~~ Mahoney, P .E.

Levee Safety Officer
3 I
(
\
American River Right Bank, NEMDC
Minimally Acceptable-Active
Operations and Maintenance Manuals
Emergency Supplies and Equipment
Flood Preparedness and Training
Unwanted Vegetation Growth
Sod Cover
Encroachments
Closure Structures
Slope Stability
Erosion/Bank Caving
Settlement
Depressions/Rutting
Cracking
nimal Control
Culverts/Discharge Pipes
Riprap Revetments & Bank Protection
Revetments other than Riprap
Underseepage Relief Wells/Toe Drainage Systems
epage
& System Ratings/PL 84-99 Eligibility
likely Prevents Performance In Next Flood Event (Framework) Not Likely to Prevent Performance In Next Flood Event
Not Likely to Prevent Performance In Next Flood Event (Framework) A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
M
M A A

NIA A N/A
M A A
A A A
A A
A A

N/A NIA N/A

NIA N/A N/A
N/A
A A A
he lowest rating is used to determine the overall segment & system ratings and PL 84-99 Rehabilitation Eligibility Legend
A Acceptable
M Minimally Acceptable
u
N/A
Unacceptable
Not Applicable
July 6, 2010

PREFACE
The purpose of this levee system periodic inspection is to identify deficiencies that pose hazards to human life or property. This assessment of the general condition of the levee system is based on available data and visual inspections. Detailed investigation and analysis involving hydrologic design, topographic mapping, subsurface investigations, testing and detailed computational evaluations is beyond the scope ofthis levee system inspection. The inspection is intended to identify the issues to facilitate such future studies and associated repairs as appropriate.

This levee system inspection is based on observations of field conditions and available data at the time of the inspection. The condition of any levee system depends on numerous and constantly changing internal and external conditions and is evolutionary in nature. It is incorrect to assume the present condition of the levee system will continue to represent the levee system condition in the future. Only through continued inspection, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation can there be a reasonable chance that unsafe conditions can be avoided.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
This page is intentionally left blank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Signature Page
Levee Safety Officer Memorandum
Statement of Independent Technical Review
Preface
Statement of Independent Technical Review ...................... .. .. ................................................... vii PART I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 1

1.1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1 PART II. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3

2.1. General. .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.2. Purpose and Scope of Inspection ..................................................................................... 3

2.3. Periodic Inspection Process .............................................................................................. 4

2.3.1. Pre-Inspection Packet .............................................................................................................. 4

2.3.2. Field Inspection ........................................................................................................................ 4

2.3.2.1. Inspection Team and Sponsor Representative ....... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ............................... 5

2.3.2.2. Dates of Inspection ............................................................................................................ 6

2.3.2.3. Weather During Inspection .............................................................................................. 6

2.3.2.4. River Gauge or Elevation Readings During Inspection ................................................ 6

2.4. Final Inspection Report .................................................................................................... 7

2.5. Previous Inspection Reports ............................................................................................. 7 PART III. SYSTEM BACKGROUND INFORMATION ....................................................... 8

3.1. Project Identification ........................................................................................................ 8

3.1.1. System Name ............................................................................................................................ 8

3.1.2. Location .................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2. Project, System, Segment Delineations ........................................................................... 9

3.3. Project Type ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.4. Project Authority ............................................................................................................... 9

3.5. Public Sponsors and Points of Contact. ........................................................................ 10

3.6. Original Cost of Project .................................................................................................. 10

3.7. Original Construction Completion Dates ..................................................................... 12

3.8. Potential Consequences ................................................................................................... 12

3.9. Investigation Prior to Construction ............................................................................... 12

3.10. History of Remedial Measures and Major Modifications ......................................... 16

3.10.1. Segment AROI- Left Bank of Arcade Creek .................................................................... l6

3.10.2. Segment AR2B- Left Bank of NEMDC. ........................................................................... 16 Page i

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

3.10.3. Segment AR03- Right Bank of American River ........................................................ .. .... 17

3.10.4. Segment AR3B (MAlO and MAll)- Right Bank of American River ...................... ...... 18

3.11. History of Recent Maintenance Activities ................................................................... 19 PART IV. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (PRE-INSPECTION PACKET INFORMATION).20

4.1. Project Description .......................................................................................................... 20

4.1.1. Segment AROI -Left Bank Arcade Creek . ........................................ ............... ............ ...... 20

4.1.1.1. Design Level of Protection .... ............................. ........... .. ... ............ ................ ........ ......... 20

4.1.1.2. Embankments .................................................. ... .. ...... : ......................... .... .... .... ... .. ... ....... 20

4.1.1.3. Drainage Structures . ......... .. .............. ..... ... ............ .... .... ........... ..... ... .. ..... ... ..................... 21

4.1.1.4. Closure Structures .... ... .............. ................... .... ............................ ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... .... 21

4.1.1.5. Encroachments and Penetrations .... ......................... .. .............. .... ................ .. ...... ... ...... 21

4.1.2. Segment AR2B- Left Bank NEMDC. ................ ............................................... .................. 24

4.1.2.1. Design Level of Protection ........... ................................................................... ............ .. .. 24

4.1.2.2. Embankments ................... ... ...... ..................... .... ............ .... .................................. ... ... ..... 24

4.1.2.3. Floodwalls ................. ....... ................ ........... ............ .... .................. ... ......... ........ ............... 25

4.1.2.4. Drainage Structures ......... .. ... ..................... ............. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........................... .... ..... 25

4.1.2.5. Encroachments and Penetrations . .......................... .. ..................................................... 25

4.1.3. Segment AR03- Right Bank American River . .. .................................. ............................... 26

4.1.3.1. Design Level of Protection ........................ .. .... ..... .... .... ........... .... ........... ... ...................... 26

4.1.3.2. Embankments ....... .. ... ........... ....... .... .............. .. ...................................................... .. ....... . 27

4.1.3.3. Drainage Structures .......... ............................................................................. .... ............. 28

4.1.3.4. Encroachments and Penetrations .............. , ................................................................... 29

4.1.3.5. Closure Structures .. .......... ............................................... ............................................... 29

4.1.4. Segment AR3B (MAIO and MAll)- Right Bank American River .................... ............ .. 29

4.1.4.1. Design Level of Protection ............ ............... ....................................... ................ .... ........ 29

4.1.4.2. Embankments ..................... ....... ... ...... .. .. ............................ .... ...... ....... .. .......... .... .... .... .... 30

4.1.4.3. Drainage Structures .. ..................... ... .... ........... ........................................... ............ .. ...... 31 Page ii

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
·' . 4.1.4.4. Encroachments and Penetrations ...... .......................................... ... .. ... .. .... .. .............. ... . 33

4.2. Past Floods and Levee Performance .............................................................................. 33

4.3. Project Condition Based on Prior Periodic Inspection ................................................ 35

4.4. Accomplishments/Developments Since the Last Periodic Inspection ......................... 39

4.5. Design Criteria Review ................................................................................................... 39 PART V. INSPECTION FINDINGS AND EVALUATIONS ............................................... 40

5.1. Results of Inspection ....................................................................................................... 40

5.1.1. Overall System ............. .. .... ... .... .... .. ...................... .. .. .. ... .. ...... .. ... ... .... ........... ......................... 40

5.1.1.1. System Summary ................ .. .. .. ........ ........ ........... .... .... ................ .... ................................ 40

5.1.1.2 Emergency Action Plan ................ .. .. ............ .... .... .. .. .. .. ................................................... 40

5.1.2. Segment AROI - Left Bank Arcade Creek ................................ ........ .. .. ........................ .. .... 40

5.1.2.1. General Items ..... ... ........................ ...................... .. .. ........ .. .. .. .. ........................................ 42

5.1.2.1.1. Item I, Operations and Maintenance Manuals ......................................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 42

5.1.2.2. Levee Embankments ...... .. .... .......... .................. ................................ ......... .. .................... 42

5.1.2.2.1. Item I, Unwanted Vegetation Growth . .................................................................. .... 42

5.1.2.2.2. Item 3, Encroachments ....... .. ...... .. .............. .. ................ .. .. .......................................... 42

5.1.2.2.3. Item 6, Erosion I Bank Caving ............. .......... ...... .. .... ................ .......... .. .................... 44

5.1.2.2.4. Item I 0, Animal Control ..... .. .. .. .................................... .... ...... .. ................ .. .. .. .. ......... 44

5.1.2.3. Floodwalls ... ............. ........................ ...................................................... .......................... 44

5.1.2.4. Interior Drainage System . ........ .. ........................ .. .. .. .. .. ........ ........ .. ................................ 44

5.1.2.5. Pump Stations ............ .... ............................. ............ .. ........... .. ..... .. .... .. .. .. .......... .... ........... 44

5.1.2.6. Flood Damage Reduction Channels .. ....... ............ .. .. ............ .......... ............... .. .. ............ 44

5.1.3. Segment AR2B - Left Bank NEMDC .. .. .............................................................. .. .............. 45

5.1.3.1. General Items .................... ..... ............ .... .... ....... .............................................................. 46

5.1.3.1.1. Item I, Operations and Maintenance Manuals .................................. .... .................. ... 46

5.1.3.2. Levee Embankments .... ... .......................... .. .......... ................................. .. ..... ........ .......... 46

5.1.3.2.1. Item I, Unwanted Vegetation Growth ...... ...... .... .. .. .. .... .. .. ........ .. .. .. ........................... 46

5.1 .3.2.2. Item 2, Sod Cover ..... .. ...................... .. ...... .. ........................................ .. ..................... 47

5. 1.3.2.3. Item 3, Encroachments ............................................ .... .... ............................ .. ...... .... ... 47 Page iii

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

5.1 .3.2.4. Item 5, Slope Stability .............................................................. .......................... .. ...... 47

5. 1.3.2.5. Item 10, Animal Control ................................ .. .............. .. .. .. .. ...... ............ .................. 48

5.1 .3.3. Flood walls ... .... .... .... ..... ..... .... ..... ........... ........ .......... ... .. ... ... ... ............ ......... ................... ... 48

5.1.3.4. Interior Drainage System ......... .. .............. ......................................... ....... ...................... 48

5.1.3.5. Pump Stations ...... .. ............. .... .... ...... ................... ...... .... ................. ...... .......... ........... ... ... 48

5.1.3.6. Flood Damage Reduction Channels ................. ................................................. .. .. ........ 48

5.1.4. Segment AR03- Right Bank American River ............................................................ ........ 48

5.1.4.1. General Items ...... .. ......... ........................................... .... .... .... ....... ............ .... ....... ....... ..... 50

5.1.4.1. 1. Item l, Operations and Maintenance Manuals ................................ ........................... 50

5.1.4.2. Levee Embankments ...... .... ........................................... ............. ... ..... .. .... .... ................... 50 5 .1.4.2.1. Item I, Unwanted Vegetation Growth .......... ... .. .. .. .. .. ..... ...... .......... .... .. .. .... ............. .. 50

5.1.4.2:2. Item 3, Encroachments ...... .. .. ................... .. ................... ...... ...... .. .. .. ............ ............... 50

5.1.4.2.3. Item 10, Animal Control. ............ .. ......... ............................ ........................................ 51

5.1.4.3. Floodwalls ... .. ..... ...... ..... ... ................. .......................................... ........... .. .... ..... .... .... ... .... 51

5.1.4.4. Interior Drainage System ................ .. .... ........ .. .... ... ............ .......... ...................... ....... ..... 51

5.1.4.5. Pump Stations ...... .... .... .... ........ ...... ...... .. .... .... ..... ................ ...... ........ .... ........... ......... ....... 51

5.1.4.6. Flood Damage Reduction Channels ........................................ ........ .... .... .... .................. 51

5.1.5. Segment AR3B (MAIO and MAll)- Right Bank American River . .... .. .. .. ......... .............. 51

5.1.5.1. General Items ........... .... ........... ........................................... ......... ...... ........ .... ........... ....... 54

5.1.5.1.1. Item 1, Operations and Maintenance Manuals ....... .. .. .. .......... .. .. ..... ..................... .. .... 54

5.1.5.2. Levee Embankments ............ .... ............... .... .... .... ..................... .......... ..... .. ............ ... ....... 54

5.1.5.2.1. Item 1, Unwanted Vegetation Growth ........................................ ................. .. ............ 54

5.1.5 .2.2 . Item 3, Encroachments ............................................................ ..... .. .............. .... .. ........ 55

5.1.5 .2.3. Item 10, AnimalControl. ................................... .... .. ................. ... .. ..... .. .. .. .... .... ......... 55

5.1.5.4.4. Item 11 , Culvert/Discharge Pipes ............................................. ...... ........................... 56

5.1.5.3. Floodwalls .. .. .. .. .. ..... ........... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ..... .... .... ........... ... ............ ........... ... ... .. .. 56 Page iv

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
I '

5.1.5.4. Interior Drainage System . .............................................................................................. 56

5.1.5.5. Pump Stations .................................................................................................................. 56

5.1.5.5.1. Item 13, Power Source ............................................................................................... 56

5.1 .5.5.2. Item 15, Megger Testing on Pump Motors and Critical Power Cables ..................... 56

5.1.5.6. Flood Damage Reduction Channels .............................................................................. 56

5.2. Design Criteria Review ................................................................................................... 56

5.3. Levee Safety Issues .......................................................................................................... 68 PART VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 73

6.1. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 73

6.2. Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 73

6.2.1. Segment AROl . ....................................................................................................................... 73

6.2.2. Segment AR2B ....................................................................................................................... 74

6.2.3. Segment AR03 . ....................................................................................................................... 75

6.2.4. Segment AR3B (MAlO and MAll) ...................................................................................... 75

6.2.5. Sacramento County Sump DOS ............................................................................................. 76

6.2.6. Sacramento County Sump D43 ............................................................................................. 76

6.3. Certification ..................................................................................................................... 76

6.4. Next Periodic Inspection ................................................................................................. 76 Page v

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Table 22
TABLES
Inspection Team ........................... ............................................................................. ...... 5 Weather During Inspection ... .......................................................................................... 6 River Stage During Inspection ...... ....................................................... ............ .. ...... .. ..... 6 Public Sponsors ........................... ..................................................... ........ .. ........ .......... . 1 0 American River Project Original Estimated Costs ......................................... .. ............. 11 Site and Material Investigation Reports ............. ................ ......................... ........ ..... .. ... 13 American River Right Bank Recent Improvements ..................................................... 19 ARO 1 Original Drainage Structures .. ............................................................................ 21 AROl Levee Encroachment and Penetration Log ......................................................... 22 AR2B Original Drainage Structures .................................................................... ......... 25 AR2B Levee Encroachment and Penetration Log ........................................................ 26 AR03 Recent Improvements ........ ................................................................................. 28 AR03 Original Drainage Structures .. .. .......................................................................... 28 MA 10 and MA 11 Recent Improvements ...................................................................... 31 MA 10 Original Drainage Structures .. ........................................................................... 3 l MAll Original Drainage Structures ............ ................................................................. 32 ARO 1 Flood Damage Reduction System Inspection Rating Summary ....................... .41 AR2B Flood Damage Reduction System Inspection Rating Summary ....................... .46 AR03 Flood Damage Reduction System Inspection Rating Summary ...................... .. 50 AR3B (MAlO and MAll) Flood Damage Reduction System Inspection Rating Summary .. ................. .. ....... ..... .......................... , ....... ...... ...... ... .................... ................. 54 Design Criteria .................. .............................. .............................................................. 67 Levee Safety Issues ...................... ........................... ........ ....................................... ....... 71

APPENDICES
A. Figures
B. Photographs
C. Completed Periodic Inspection Checklist
D. Inspection Notes and/or Trip Reports
E. Summary of Crack Surveys
F. References
G. Drawings
H. Most Recent Levee Inspection Reports
I. List of System Documents
J. Pump Station Inspection
K. Independent Technical Review
L. Resolution of USACE QA
M. OutbriefComments and Minutes
Page vi

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
PART I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

1.1. Executive Summary. Levee System "American River Right Bank, NEMDC" is located wholly within Sacramento County and partly within the City of Sacramento, California. The system consists of four segments and covers the lower two miles of Arcade Creek left bank, the lower 1 ~miles ofNatomas East Main Drainage Canal left bank and eleven miles along the American River right bank from River Mile 1.6 to 13.9, for a total levee length of 141S miles.

Three of the four levee segments along Arcade Creek, NEMDC and American River up to Cal Expo were originally completed in 1955 and are part of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project(FloodControlActofl917,modifiedbyActsof1928, 1937,1941 and 1950). One segment upstream of Cal Expo along the American River was originally completed in 1958 and is part of the American River Levee Project (Flood Control Act of 3 September 1954, PL 83- 780) .. The levees are federally authorized and constructed and are non-federally operated and maintained urban flood control projects. The levees are maintained by the American River Flood Control District. Closure structures are operated and maintained by the City of Sacramento Department of Transportation. Federally authorized pump stations are operated and maintained by Sacramento County. Non-federal authorized pump stations are operated and maintained by the City of Sacramento.

A Flood Damage Reduction Segment Inspection Report was prepared for each segment within the system. Each report summarizes conditions observed or information gathered during the inspection and provides ratings for each item I component of each segment. The reports provide rating guidelines and are presented in Appendix C of this report.

The USACE Levee Safety Officer has reviewed the findings of this Periodic Inspection and has assigned ratings to each segment and the system. The segment and overall system ratings can be found in the LSO Approval Memorandum preceding the main text of this Periodic Inspection report.

Common "less than acceptable" feature ratings for most segments within this system are as follows:
• Operations and Maintenance Manual Minimally Acceptable • Unwanted Vegetation Unacceptable
• Encroachments Unacceptable
• Slope Stability Minimally Acceptable
• Erosion Minimally Acceptable
• Animal Control Minimally Acceptable
• Culvert I Discharge Pipes Unacceptable
Page l
Levee improvements are not consistently documented in the Operation and Maintenance Manuals. The levee O&M Manuals do not identify operators of pump stations and drainage culverts.

The levee district has a program to remove brush and immature trees. Many mature trees have not been removed. The primary impediment to successful remedial action seems to be conflicting public policies regarding trees and the lack of conviction that the trees need to be removed for public safety.

Unauthorized encroachments include debris, furniture, appliances, yard waste and tree branches.

At the upstream end of the levee along the American River, the levee passes through private residential properties, and encroachments consist of homes, roads, driveways, and landscaping.

Access to this section of the levee was "by appointment" with individual propetty owners.

Fences, landscaping and buildings, most of which are probably on private propet1y, block visual inspection of the levee toe and restrict flood fight access. Other encroachments include overhead and underground utilities, and vehicular and railroad bridges.

Erosion was fairly minor. Minor depressions and rutting were observed.

The levee district has sound animal control practices. However, enough burrowing animal activity was found to warrant increased efforts.

Drainage culverts that pass through the levee embankment have not been visually inspected or inspected by video recording equipment.

Extensive engineering and construction efforts have been applied to the system over the last two decades. While original design criteria from the 1950's would be deficient in many areas when compared to current practice, the recent designs and construction appear to conform to current design criteria.

With the exceptions of tree removal, fences, culvert inspections and access to private propet1ies, the operating and maintenance practices for the levee system, including its closure structures, floodwalls, and federally authorized pump stations appear to be sound.

This is the first Corps of Engineers Periodic Inspection for this levee system and was conducted in December 2009 and January 20 I 0. The next periodic inspection based on a five year repeat interval would be in 2015.

PART II. INTRODUCTION.

2.1. General. For Official Use Only (FOUO)- This report contains levee information that may expose a vulnerability; threaten a project's security; and increase risk to residents, and therefore must be safeguarded. It may not be released in an uncontrolled manner. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) has historically conducted inspections of flood damage reduction projects such as the subject levee system under the Inspection of Completed Works (ICW) program. USACE has initiated a more detailed "periodic" inspection program for these levee systems. As currently envisioned, periodic inspections will be performed every 5 to 10 years. Annual inspections will continue to be performed in years when there is not a periodic inspection.

2.2. Purpose and Scope of Inspection. Periodic inspections are comprehensive inspections that assess operation and maintenance activities; operational adequacy and structural stability; identify features to monitor over time; identify changes in design criteria; and improve the ability to communicate overall levee conditions, and determine the eligibility for PL 84-99 funds.

Features assessed included the levee embankment, gravity drainage structures, pump stations, closure structures, underseepage control measures, and other project appurtenances. Periodic inspections utilize existing information. No new studies, surveys, engineering analysis, etc. are performed as part of a periodic inspection.

The scope of the periodic inspection does not include providing overall rating of the levee segments or the overall levee system. These rating are determined by the USACE Levee Safety Officer (LSO) base on the data provided in the Periodic Inspection Report and Out-Brief.

The scope of service for the subject periodic levee inspection consists of the following 10 tasks:
• Task 1 - Project Plan
• Task 2- Standardization Workshop
• Task 3 - System Documentation Collection
• Task 4- Design Criteria Review
• Task 5 - Pre-Inspection Packet
• Task 6 - Field Inspection
• Task 7 - Draft PI Report
• Task 8- Independent Technical Review
• Task 9- Conduct PI Out-Brief for USACE Levee Safety Officer • Task 10 - Closeout Periodic Inspection

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

2.3. Periodic Inspection Process. The periodic inspection process generally consists of the following three key steps:
• Prepare pre-inspection packet
• Conduct inspection
• Prepare final inspection report

2.3.1. Pre-Inspection Packet. A pre-inspection packet is prepared to familiarize inspection team members with project features, historic inspection results, performance history, and other pertinent information. The packet includes information from sources such as design documents, operation and maintenance manuals, previous annual inspection reports, emergency action plans, flood fight records, levee modifications, and other relevant information.

A pre-inspection packet was prepared for the subject levee system based on the system documents provided to the inspection team. The system documents were provided by USACE either on CDs or in the Levee Inspection System (LIS) units. A list of the system documents provided is included in Appendix F. As-built drawings are included in Appendix G. Other than performing the field inspections, no new data was collected, or analysis performed. Information from the pre-inspection packet is presented in Part IV of this report.

2.3.2. Field Inspection. A field inspection is performed to evaluate the physical condition of various project features. This inspection is similar to a routine annual inspection, but with more detail, and is performed by a multidisciplinary team led by a professional engineer. The local maintenance agency was present during portions but not most of the levee embankment inspections. City maintenance crews were present during demonstration of the swing gate closure structure. City maintenance crews provide tours of the stop-log storage facilities for other closure structures. Pump station operators were present during pump station inspections.

The inspections were performed by teams of engineers, and the findings and field ratings were either entered into the Levee Inspection System (LIS) units in the field or hand written notes were taken in the field and entered into the LIS in the office. A list of inspection team members and sponsor representative, dates of inspection, weather during inspection, and river gauge readings during inspection are presented in the following paragraphs.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

2.3.2.1. Inspection Team and Sponsor Representative. The GHT2 inspection team consisted of the following personnel for all or portions of the field inspection:

TABLE 1 - INSPECTION TEAM
Member Name Technical Field
Rick Chen Civil I Geotechnical Engineering, Inspection Team Leader Ed Hultgren Civil I Geotechnical Engineering
Ken Murphy Civil I Geotechnical Engineering
Wilson Wong Civil I Geotechnical Engineering
Larry Vidaurry Civil Engineering
Greg Bickett Civil I Structural Engineering
G. Frank Ransley Mechanical Engineering
AI DeLeon Electrical Engineering
American River Flood Control District:

Richard Marek
City of Sacramento:

Kim Capaul
Mike Ragan
Ramon Gibbons
Robert Saenz
Sacramento County:

John Money
USACE:

Jesse Hogan
Kiet Phan
Field Superintendent
Dept of Water Resources, Pump Station Manager
Dept of Water Resources, Pump Station Field Superintendent Dept of Transportation, Operations GM, Closure Structures Dept ofTransportation, Street Maint. Supervisor, Closure Struct.

Area Supervisor, Pump Stations
Point of Contact
Levee Inspection Group
The City and County agencies had additional maintenance workers who assisted the persons listed above in demonstrating pump stations, swing gates, and stop-log storage areas. Jesse Hogan often brought a different additional USACE staff member when periodically visiting the inspection crews.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

2.3.2.2. Dates of Inspection.
• Levee Inspections: 29 December 2009, 30 December 2009, 31 December 2009, 4 January 20 I 0, 19 January 20 I 0, 21 January 20 10, 27 January 20 10 • Pump Station Inspections: 14 January 2010, 15 January 2010, 19 January 2010 • Floodwall Inspection: 8 February 2010

2.3.2.3. Weather During Inspection.

TABLE 2- WEATHER DURING INSPECTION
Date
Mean Temperature Precipitation
(degrees Fahrenheit) (inches)
29 December 2009 41 0.00
30 December 2009 49 0.04
31 December 2009 50 0.00
4 January 2010 48 0.00
7 January 20 I 0 48 0.00
14 January 2010 50 0.00
15 January 2010 49 0.00
19 January 2010 49 0.80
21 January 2010 47 0.33
27 January 2010 45 0.00
8 February 2010 50 0.03

2.3.2.4. River Gauge or Elevation Readings During Inspection.

TABLE 3 - RIVER STAGE DURING INSPECTION
Date and Time
River Stage (feet)
Sacramento River At "I" American River At "H"
Street Bridge (1ST) 1 Street Bridge (HST) 2
29 December 2009 at noon 3.55 17.03
30 December 2009 at noon 3.53 17.06
31 DeGember 2009 at noon 3.25 17.06
4 January 2010 at noon 4.03 16.90
7 January 20 I 0 at noon 4.20 16.88
14 January 2010 at noon 3.94 16.83
15 January 2010 at noon 5.16 16.83
19 January 2010 at noon 6.76 17.00

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
TABLE 3- RIVER STAGE DURING INSPECTION (continued)
Date and Time
River Stage (feet)
Sacramento River At "I" American River At "H"
Street Bridge (IST) 1 Street Bridge (HST) 2
21 January 20 I 0 at noon 12.65 I6.93
27 January 20 I 0 at noon 15.82 I9.41
8 February 20 I 0 at noon I1.15 I6.80 1 Sacramento River at "I" Street Bridge (1ST): Datum 0 = 0.00' NGVD, Monitor Stage= 25', Flood Stage= 31.0', Danger Stage= 32.0', Peak Stage of Record= 30.7' on 19 February I986 2 American River at "H" Street Bridge (HST): Datum 0 = 0.00' U.S.E.D., Monitor Stage= 40.0', Flood Stage= 42 .8', Danger Stage= 43 .8', Peak Stage of Record= 43.4' on I9 February 1986

2.4. Final Inspection Report. This final rep011, as presented herein, was prepared to document the results of the periodic inspection. The report includes relevant information collected, ratings for the levee rated item/component, conclusions, and recommendations. The segment and overall system ratings can be found in the LSO Approval Memorandum preceding the main text of this PI report.

2.5. Previous Inspection Reports. The current Periodic Inspection (PI) is the first PI, so there is no prior PI. Routine levee inspections were conducted by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) on the subject levee system. The most recent DWR levee inspection included in the documents provided was conducted in Fall of 2008 , and the results were presented in a written report (PDF filename: NAOOOl_FA2008.pdf). It should be noted that the routine inspections by DWR were not conducted in accordance with the Corps criteria.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
PART III. SYSTEM BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

3.1. Project Identification.

3.1.1. System Name. The system name is "American River Right Bank, NEMDC I California" .

NEMDC is an acronym used by USACE to represent the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal.

3.1.2. Location. This levee system consists of three units (Unit 1, Unit 2 South, and Unit 3) located in Sacramento, Sacramento County, California (see Figure A-1 ).

Unit l: The USACE segment name for Unit 1 is AROl. AROl is located on the south (left) bank of Arcade Creek beginning at its confluence with NEMDC (Levee Mile [LM] 0.00) and extending to LM 2.06.

Unit 2: Unit 2 South (USACE segment name AR2B) is located on the east (left) bank of NEMDC between NEMDC river miles (RM) 2.3 and 3.5. The NEMDC levee miles start at the south end of the levee (LM 0.00) and increase upstream to LM 1.25 where it joins ARO I at Arcade Creek.

Unit 3: Unit 3 is located on the north (right) bank of American River between American River RM 1.6 and 13 .9. Unit 3 is further subdivided into 2 sections, segment AR03, and AR3B. AR03 begins at AR03 LM 0.64 at Cal Expo and extends 2.78 miles downstream to LM 3.42 where it abuts NEMDC at AR2B LM 0.00. AR3B contains both Maintenance Area 10 (MA 1 0) and Maintenance Area 11 (MAll). MAIO begins at MAIO LM 0.00 at the Watt Avenue Bridge and extends downstream to MA I 0 LM 4.32 at Cal Expo where it abuts AR03. MA 11 begins at MAll LM 0.00 near Coda Lane and River Oak Way and extends downstream to LM 4.04 where it abuts MAIO.

Several discrepancies regarding the segment name and levee mile system are described below:
• The segment name "AR3B" used in the Levee Inspection System (LIS) contains both Maintenance Areas 10 and 11, even though they each have their own levee mile system.

They are being referred to as Units MA I 0 and MA 11 , respectively, in the text of this report. The segment name "AR3B" in the Periodic Inspection Checklist shown in Appendix C of this rcpoti represents the combination of both MAlO and MAll, to be consistent with the LIS segment naming system.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
.' .
• The ''unit_line_stationing" of the National Levee Database in the LIS for Units AR03, MAlO and MAll increases in the upstream direction, while the levee mile systems used by local districts for Units AR03, MAlO, and MAll increase in the downstream direction. The levee mile systems of the local districts are being used in the text of this rep01i.
• The starting point of AR03 (LM 0.00) originally was located near the intersection of Swanston Road (now Arden Way) and Howe Avenue. MAlO joins AR03 at LM 0.64 of AR03. The section of levee between LM 0.00 and LM 0.64 of AR03 is the so-called Cal Expo levee, which is abandoned. The total length of the active AR03 is 2.78 miles (from LM 0.64 to LM 3.42), and the total length ofUnit 3 (AR03, MAlO and MAll) is 11.14 miles.

3.2. Project, System, Segment Delineations. For purposes of the Corp's levee safety program, flood damage reduction systems, such as levees, are delineated into projects, systems and segments as defined below.

Project: A project is made up of one or more flood damage reduction systems that were constructed under the same authorization.

System: A system is made up of one or more segments that collectively provide flood damage reduction to a defined area. Failure of one segment within a system constitutes failure of the entire system. Failure of one system does not adversely affect another system.

Segment: A segment is defined as a discrete portion of a flood damage reduction system that is operated and maintained by a single entity. A segment can be made up of one or more features (levees, channels, floodwalls, pump stations, etc).

3.3. Project Type. The "American River Right Bank, NEMDC System" is a federally authorized and non-federally operated and maintained, urban flood protection project.

3.4. Project Authority. Segments AR01, AR2B, and AR03 of the "American River Right Bank, NEMDC System," are a part of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project which was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1917, as modified by the Acts of 1928, 193 7, 1941 and 1950. Segment AR3B (MAlO and MAll) belong to the American River Levee Project which was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 3 September 1954, Public Law 780, Eighty-third Congress, Second Session.

Page9

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
,I •

3.5. Public Sponsors and Points of Contact. The Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) is the public sponsor. The American River Flood Control District (ARFCD) is responsible for operating and maintaining the flood protection system levees, and the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County are responsible for operating and maintaining the pump stations and closure structures.

TABLE 4- PUBLIC SPONSOR AND MAINTAINING AGENCIES
Central Valley Flood Protection Board: John Paasch
P.O. Box 219000
Sacramento, California 95821-9000
Phone: (916) 57 4-1204
E-mail: [email protected]
American River Flood Control District: Tim Kerr, General Manager Richard Marek, Superintendent
165 Commerce Circle, Suite D
Sacramento, California 95815
Office: (916) 929-4006
Mobile: (916) 417-4163
E-mail: Richard(a)arfcd.org
City of Sacramento Kim Capaul, Pump Station Manager
Department of Water Resources 1395 35th Avenue
Pump Stations Sacramento, CA 95822
Office: (916) 808-5229
Cell: (916) 952-8802
E-mail: [email protected]
City of Sacramento Ramon Gibbons, Operations General Manager Department of Transportation 918 Del Paso Road
Closure Structures Sacramento, California 95834
Office: (916) 808-5871
Cell: (916) 420-1882
E-mail: [email protected]
County of Sacramento John Money, Area Supervisor
Pump Stations (mailing address needed)
Office: (916) 875-7135
Cell: (916) 591-2834
E-mail: [email protected]

3.6. Original Cost of Project. Segments ARO 1, AR2B, and AR03 were constructed as part of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project. The Sacramento River Flood Control Project was constructed under Contract No. DA-04-167-eng-1316 by Elmer G. Wendt, Contractor. No

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
·' .
records could be located regarding the cost of this contract, as well as the cost of the subject levee system portion of the contract.

Segment AR3B (MAIO, and MAll) were constructed as the American River Levee Project.

The subject levee segments were constructed under Contract No. DA-04-167-eng-416 by J. R.

Reeves, and Contract No. DA-04-167-CIVENG-57-136 by A. Teichert and Son, Inc., contractor.

Pumping plants DOS and D43, cunently operated and maintained by the Sacramento County, were constructed under Contract No. DA-04-167-CIVENG-57-136 by A. Teichert & Son of Sacramento, California, General Contractor; Baldwin Construction Company of Marysville, California, sub-contractor; Luppen & Hawley, Inc., electrical sub-contractor; and, Munz Pumps Inc., pump sub-contractor. No records regarding the cost of these contracts were located in the system documents. No construction contracts or cost data were found for pump stations 159, 154, 153, 151, 152,95, 109, Kadema Drive sump, and Hanington Way sump, currently operated and maintained by the City of Sacramento. The following adopted-plan estimated costs ( 1956 base) were provided in the Design Memorandum No. 1 for the American River Project, dated 25 June 1956, by Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Sacramento, California (PDF filename: American River Levee General Design M.pdf).

TABLE 5 -AMERICAN RIVER PROJECT ORIGINAL ESTIMATED COSTS Adopted-Plan Estimate (1956 Base)
Federal
Construction $2,120,000
Levees (980,000)
Pumping Plants ( 1' 140,000)
Engineering and Design 160,000
Supervision and Administration 160,000
Total Federal Cost $ 2~440l000
Non-Federal
Lands $484,000
Relocations 230,000
Total Non-Federal Cost $ 714l000
No contract information or cost data for subsequent levee upgrades, including installing cutoff walls, raising the crest, and installing floodwalls, were found in the system documents provided.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

3.7. Original Construction Completion Dates. The construction contract required to bring locally built levees of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project to project standards and to construct new levees was accomplished under Contract No. DA-04-167 -eng-1316 by Elmer G.

Wendt, Contractor, during the period from 11 April 1955 to 3 December 1955. This included segments AROJ, AR2B, and AR03. Responsibility for operating and maintaining the completed works within this system was transferred to the Reclamation Board of the State of California on 15 December 1955.

The American River Levee Project included: (a) Federal levee construction along the right bank of the American River from the vicinity of the Carmichael Bluffs downstream to the upper end of the existing Sacramento River Flood Control Project levee protecting North Sacramento; (b) Federal placement of bank protection on both banks where needed to prevent erosion due to high stream velocities; and (c) Federal construction of pumping plants to provide for interior drainage from the local area which is to be protected by the new levee. The levees were constructed under Contract No. DA-04-167-eng-416 by J. R. Reeves and completed on 19 February 1951 ; and Contract No. DA-04-167-CIVENG-57-136 by A. Teichert and Son, Inc., contractor, during the period from 15 May 1957 to 7 November 1958. This included segment AR3B (MA 10 and MAll). Pumping plants D05 and 043 were constructed under Contract No. DA-04-167- CIVENG-57-136 by A. Teichert & Son of Sacramento, California, General Contractor; Baldwin Construction Company of Marysville, California, sub-contractor; Luppen & Hawley, Inc., electrical sub-contractor; and, Munz Pumps Inc., pump sub-contractor. The pumping plant contract was scheduled to be initiated in the early spring of 1957 and completed by 1 January 1958. Responsibility for operating and maintaining the completed works of the American River Levee Project was officially accepted by the Reclamation Board of the State of Califomia by letters dated 19 December 1958 and 2 1 January 1959.

3.8. Potential Consequences. Information related to populations at risk and estimated property value in the protected area is not found in the National Levee Database or the system documents provided.

3.9. Investigation Prior to Construction. Based on the system documents provided, the following table is a list of reports that contain site and material investigations:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(
TABLE 6 - SITE AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS
Title Date Author PDF Filename
Design Memorandum No. I, 25 June 1956 Sacramento District, Corps of American River Levee General Design M.pdf American River Project, California, Engineers, U.S. Army, American River Levee General Sacramento, California
Design
Protection for the Arden Interceptor July 1977 Fredric Raichlen, Civil Engineer, Application number 12188.pdf in the Flood Plain of the American prepared for The Spink River Corporation, 720 F Street,
Sacramento, California
Levee Investigation, American River September Wahler Associates, prepared for Project COE-251K, Wahler Associates.pdf Flood Control District and 1987 Department of the Army, Maintenance Areas 1 0 and 11 , Dry Sacramento District, Corps of Creek, Arcade Creek, Natomas East Engineers
Main Drainage Canal, American
River, and Sacramento River,
Sacramento County, California
Office Report, Geotechnical Portion December 1987 Geotechnical Branch, U.S. Army Geotechnical Portion Appraisal Report Sac. Flood of the Initial Appraisal Report for the Engineer District, Sacramento, Cont. Dec l.pdf Sacramento River Flood Control Corps of Engineers
System Evaluation
Sacramento River Flood Control May 1988 US Arn1y Corps of Engineers Sac. River Flood Control Initial Appraisal Report System Evaluation, Initial Appraisal Sacramento District May 1988.pdf Report- Sacramento Urban Area

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
TABLE 6- SITE AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS (continued) Title Date Author PDF Filename
Office Report, Levee Stability, July 1988 Soil Design Section, Geotechnical Office Report Levee Stability Sac River System Sacramento River Flood Control Branch, U.S. Army Engineer EvaL Amer. R.pdf System Evaluation, American River District, Sacramento, Corps of Levees Engineers
Geotechnical Report on: American August 2000 Soil Design Section, Geotechnical AR Watershed Implementation ofWRDA 99.pdf River Watershed Implementation of Branch, U.S. Army Corps of WRDA 99 Common Features, Lower Engineers, Sacramento District American River Sites
Supplemental Geotechnical Report, February 2001 Soil Design Section, Geotechnical Geo. Report- WRDA 99 Common features.pdf American River Watershed Branch, U.S. Army Corps of
Implementation of WRDA 99 Engineers, Sacramento District Corrunon Features, Right Bank Near
N.E.M.D.C.

Geotechnical Report, American November Soil Design Section, Geotechnical Memorandum for PM-C (R. Nishio).pdf River Watershed Implementation of 2001 Branch, U.S. Army Corps of WRDA 99 Common Features, Engineers, Sacramento District Reevaluation of Right Bank Near
Jacob Lane
Final Jet Grout Alternatives 11 September URS, prepared for US Army Final Jet Grout Alternatives Evaluation Report 09- Evaluation Report, American River 2002 Corps of Engineers, Sacramento ll-02.pdf Watershed Project (Common District
Features), California, American
River, Jet Grout Alternatives, Site
Investigation and Design Selection,
Sacramento, CA

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(
TABLE 6- SITE AND MATERIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS (continued) Title Date Author PDF Filename
Design Analysis Report, I 00% 26 March 2003 URS, prepared for US Army Design Analysis Report 100% submittal 03-26- Submittal, American River Corps of Engineers, Sacramento 03.pdf Watershed Project (Conunon District
Features), California, Levee
Strengthening, Alternative Methods
Contract A, Sacramento, CA
Draft, Technical Review December 2007 URS, prepared for Department of Technical Review Memorandum- AR Levees.pdf Memorandum, American River Water Resources, Division of Levee Study Area, Urban Levee Flood Management, 2829 Watt Geotechnical Evaluations, Contract Avenue, Suite I 00, Sacramento, 4600007418, Task Order 24, Version CA 95821
0 Draft, Phase I Geotechnical Data June 2008 URS, prepared for Department of 20080703 _NEMDCEast_P I GDR.pdf Report, Natomas East Main Drainage Water Resources, Division of Canal East Study Area, Urban Levee Flood Management, 2825 Watt Geotechnical Evaluations Program, A venue, Suite I 00, Sacramento, Contract 4600007418, Task Order CA 95821
37, Revision 0

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

3.10. History of Remedial Measures and Major Modifications. The following list of major modifications was created based on the system documents provided. This list may not include all major improvements.

3.10.1. Segment AROI -Left Bank of Arcade Creek.
• Permit No. 8759 was issued by the Reclamation Board in 1973 to construct short in-fill sections of levee on nmth and south banks of Arcade Creek, across abandoned Sacramento Northern Railroad Tracks, Section 2, Township 9 North, Range 5 East, MDB&M, Sacramento County (American River Flood Control District). The location of this project was about 400 feet downstream from Rio Linda Boulevard in north Sacramento (left bank Arcade Creek LM 1.2, ARO 1 ).
• Permit No. 15809 GM, was issued by the Reclamation Board in 1991 to reshape and place riprap at selected locations on both banks of Arcade Creek. The project was located in the City of Sacramento between Rio Linda and Marysville Boulevards, Sections 15, 16, 21 and 22, Township 9 North, Range 5 East, MDB&M, Arcade Creek, Sacramento County (LM 1.3 to 2.1, ARO 1 ).
• Petmit No. 16032 GM was issued by the Reclamation Board in 1994 to upgrade and raise existing levee crowns and construct new levees and stop-log structures on both sides of Arcade Creek. The project was located in the City of Sacramento between the NEMDC and Marysville Boulevard, Sections 15, 16,20 and 21, MDB&M, (American River Flood Control District) Arcade Creek, Sacramento County (LM 0 to 2.6, ARO 1 ).

3.10.2. Segment AR2B- Left Bank of NEMDC.
• Permit No. 2553 was filed with ARFCD in 1957 to install 30-inch welded steel pipe liner inside existing 36-inch pipe passing under left bank levee ofNEMDC at pumping plant no. 3 1400 feet south ofEl Camino Avenue (LM 0.54 of AR2B). • Permit No. 6064 was filed with ARFCD in 1969 in construct a drainage pumping plant, inlet ditch, and to install a 36-inch pipe through the left bank ofNEMDC 1000 feet downstream of El Camino A venue Bridge. The project also included headwall and flap gate on the waterside end of pipe. Pumping plant was to include a 13 feet by 13 feet sump 97 feet landward of levee centerline. The permit proposed to retain an existing 36- inch corrugated metal discharge pipe for 10 years, and to remove it if it was not used within that period. The new pumping plant was to be constructed north of an existing

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
·' .
pumping plant. The existing pumping plant was to be abandoned. (LM 0.51 of AR2B). • Permit No. 16029 GM (Revised) was issued by the Reclamation Board in 1995 to raise existing levees from 0 to 3.5 feet above the then existing crown elevations on both sides of the NEMDC and 200 feet of the American River north levee. The project was located in the City of Sacramento between Ascot A venue and the confluence of the NEMDC and the American River floodway, Sections 6, 7, 18 and 19, Township 9 North, Range 5 East, MDB&M (Reclamation District No. 1000 and American River Flood Control District) Sacramento County (LM 0.0 to LM 1.25 of AR2B and LM 3.38 to LM 3.42 of AR03).

3.10.3. Segment AR03- Right Bank of American River.
• The Reclamation Board approved Application No. 5776 in 1967 for a plan to remove an existing pumping plant and to abandon 2 existing discharge pipes through the right bank levee and for construction of a drainage pumping plant and installation of 6 discharge pipes through the right bank levee American River, immediately upstream of the (then) Interstate 80 Freeway, levee miles 1.51 and 1.54, Unit No. 3 (AR03), American River Flood Control District, Section 33, Township 9 North, Range 5 East, MDB&M, Sacramento County.
• In 1989, the Reclamation Board had determined that the levee located totally within the California State Exposition Grounds had no flood control benefit and was no longer of project levee status. The non-status levee was approximately 3,500 feet in length, extending northerly 2,000 feet from the American River Project levee and easterly I ,500 feet and adjacent to Exposition Boulevard. The levee was located on the Sacramento East Quadrangle map in the northwest quarter of Section 34, Township 9 North, Range 5 East, MDB&M. Effective l November 1989, this levee was no longer being inspected by the Department of Water Resources nor applications for pem1its being required by the Reclamation Board (LM 0.00 to 0.64, AR03).
• The Reclamation Board approved Permit No. 16796 GM (Revised) in 1998 to plant vegetation on the right and left banks of the American River. The project was located on the right (north) bank downstream of Howe Avenue and across from Sacramento State University (river mile 7.6, or LM 1.90 of MAIO) and on the left (south) bank upstream of the Capitol City Freeway (river mile 4.2, or LM 3.95 of AR04), Section 10, Township 8 North and Sections 32 and 33, Township 9 N01th, Range 5 East, MDB&M (American River Flood Control District), American River, Sacramento County.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
• At around 1999, a project was developed to improve three sections of the American River right (north) bank levee by installing cutoff walls. The name of the project was "American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Right (North) Bank Levee Strengthening (Spec No. 9985, Design File No. AM1-4-793)". One ofthe three sections was located in Segments AR03 and MAlO (LM 1.6 ofMAlO downstream to LM

2.7 of AR03). The second section was located in Segment MAll (LM 2 to LM 4 of MA 11 ). The third section was located on the left bank of Sacramento River.

3.10.4. Segment AR3B (MAIO and MAll)- Right Bank of American River. • According to the Supplement of Standard Operation and Maintenance Manual of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, levee rehabilitation was conducted in 1962 on the right bank of the American River and left bank of the Natomas Canal. Bank protection work at RM 5.1 (approximately LM 4.0 of MAIO) on the right bank of the American River was accomplished during the period from August 1967 to February 1968.
• The Reclamation Board approved Application No. 4622 in 1964 for a plan to construct a drainage pumping plant (City Sump 1 09) in and near the north levee of the American River, approximately 1.5 miles upstream from the H Street Bridge in the City of Sacramento, levee mile 1.20, MAlO, Section 11 , Township 8 North, Range 5 East, MDB&M, Sacramento County.
• The Reclamation Board approved Application No. 6066 in 1969 for a plan to construct one 5 feet by 5 feet and one 6 feet by 6 feet reinforced concrete twin box gravity drain in the American River right bank levee and to temporarily stockpile material in the overflow area, located at the American River Pumping Plant No. 1 (LM 3.7 of MAIO), Section 66, Rancho Del Paso, Township 8 Noxih, Range 5 East, MDB&M, Sacramento County. • The Reclamation Board approved Application No. 11927 GM in 1977 to replace a 42- inch storm drain pipe under the right bank levee and an outfall structure in the right bank of the American River at the end of Claremont Road and approximately Y:z-mile upstream from Arden Way in Carmichael. Section 56, Township 9 North, Range 6 East, MDB&M, Sacramento County (LM 0.17, MAll).
• The Reclamation Board approved Permit No. 14569 GM in 1987 for a plan to reshape and place riprap on 1,200 feet of the right bank of the American River. The project was located north of the City of Sacramento approximately 2,000 feet downstream from the Howe A venue Bridge. Section 10, Township 8 North, Range 5 East, MDB&M, American River, Sacramento Count (LM 1.7, MAIO).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
·' '
• The Reclamation Board approved Permit No. 18121 GM in 2006 for a plan to widen the right (north) bank levee by placing approximately 3 feet high, 4 feet wide and 120 feet long fill material, to pave the crown with 3-inch of asphalt, and construct a 12-foot-wide access driveway on the waterside slope of the right (north) bank levee of the American River. The project was located in Carmichael, south of Fair Oaks Boulevard at 1891 Claremont Road (Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 6 East, MDB&M, American River Flood Control District, American River, Sacramento County, LM 0.00 of MAll). • In December 2007 URS prepared a draft Technical Review Memorandum as part of the Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations (Task Order 24). The memorandum provided the following summary of recent levee improvement projects for the right (north) bank American River levees as of2007. The descriptions were by River Mile. The approximate right bank levee miles are shown in the Table below:

TABLE 7- AMERICAN RIVER RIGHT BANK RECENT IMPROVEMENTS
River Mile Note Segment/Levee Mile

1.74 to 3.15
No slurry cutoff wall
LM 3.42 to 2.5 of AR03
improvement
Slurry cutoff wall
Included gaps R2 and R3A; gaps

3.15 to 5.2
approximately 60 feet deep
RIA and R3 (closed); LM 2.5 of
AR03 to LM 4.0 of MAlO

5.2 to 5.6 Slurry cutoffwall Included gap R4 (closed); LM 4.0 of approximately 72 feet deep MAlO to LM 3.4 ofMAlO
Slun-y cutoff wall
Included gaps R5, R6, R7, R8, and

5.6 to 7.6 R9; LM 3.4 ofMAlO to LM 1.5 of
approximately 60 feet deep MAlO

7.6 to 9.15 Slurry cutoffwall Included gap RIO; LM 1.5 ofMAlO approximately 72 feet deep to LM 0.0 of MAlO

9.15 to 10.7 5 Slurry cutoff wall Included gap Rll (closed); LM 4.0 approximately 72 feet deep ofMAll to LM 2.5 MAll)

10.75 to 11.3 Slurry cutoff wall LM 2.5 ofMAll to LM 2.0 of approximately 62 feet deep MAll

11.3 to 13.8
No slurry cutoff wall LM 2.0 of MAll to LM 0.1 of
improvement MAll

3.11. History of Recent Maintenance Activities. No history of recent maintenance activities of the subject levee system was provided.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
...

PART IV. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (PRE-INSPECTION PACKET INFORMATION).

4.1. Project Description. See paragraph 3.1 of this report.

4.1.1. Segment AROl- Left Bank Arcade Creek.

4.1.1.1. Design Level of Protection. Along Arcade Creek the grade of the original adopted flood plane varied from Elevation 37.3 feet U.S.E.D. at its junction with the Natomas Canal to Elevation 39.2 feet U.S.E.D. at its upper end. The original levee grade provided for a freeboard of at least 3 feet. The original design flow in Arcade Creek above its mouth was 3,300 cubic feet per second.

4.1.1.2. Embankments. According to the Standard Operation and Maintenance Manual (revised) for the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, dated May 1955, the levees were constructed generally with a crown width of 20 feet, with lands ide slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2.0H: 1 V) and riverside slopes of 3.0H: 1 V.

According to a draft, Revision 0, June 2008, Phase 1 Geotechnical Data Report prepared by URS, the existing levee crest elevations along the southern Arcade Creek levee ranged from approximately 45 feet (NAVD 88) near the west end (LM 0.0 of AROl) to approximately 43 feet near the cast end (LM 2.1 of ARO 1) with an average crest elevation of approximately 44 feet.

Landside ground surface elevations along the southern Arcade Creek levee ranged from approximately 25 feet near the west end to approximately 35 feet near the east end. Observed levee heights (landside toe to crest) ranged from approximately 20 feet near the west end to approximately 4 feet near the east end. The width of the crest along the southern Arcade Creek levee ranged from approximately 11 to 21 feet. The surface of the levee crest consisted of gravel. Landside slope inclinations were approximately 2H: 1 V. Waterside slope inclinations were approximately 2.5H: 1 V. A concrete flood wall approximately I to 2 feet high exists along the waterside edge of the crest between approximately levee miles 1.30 and 2.09. The flood wall was constructed in 1994. In this area, the southern Arcade Creek levee has a height of about 4 to 7 feet (crest elevation of about 43.5 feet), and a crest width of about 11 to 13 feet.

According to a report prepared by Wahler Associates in 1987, levee materials encountered in their borings along Arcade Creek generally consisted of firm, low to moderately plastic sandy clay, except at one site, where the upper 5 feet of the levee consisted of silty sand. Their review of available boring information indicated somewhat variable foundation conditions. For

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
example, the upper 5 to 6 feet of the foundation at two of their study sites also consisted of firm, low to moderately plastic, sandy clay overlying loose, slightly silty sand. However, at another of their study site, the borings encountered about 5 to 7 feet of sandy silt in the upper foundation, overlying a 4 to 5-foot thick layer of denser clayey sand, underlain by sandy or clayey silts, and slightly silty sand at greater depths.

4.1.1.3. Drainage Structures. The following is a list of original drainage structures in ARO 1 as shown in the Operation and Maintenance Manual:

TABLE 8- AROl ORIGINAL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
Approx.

AROl Description Reference (PDF Filename)
Levee Mile

1.22 Drainage structure, 15" SAC RDxx Unitll8Pt2 BkE NatomasCnlArcadeC - - - - corrugated metal pipe rMagpieCrChnl. pdf

1.30 Drainage structure, 12" SAC RDxx Unit118Pt2 BkE N atomasCnlArcadeC - - - - corrugated metal pipe rMagpieCrChnl. pdf

4.1.1.4. Closure Structures. The southern Arcade Creek levee ties into the eastern NEMDC levee at levee mile 0.00 of ARO 1. The southern Arcade Creek levee is discontinuous at the railroad crossing near levee mile 0.00 of AR01 where the track elevation is approximately 12 feet lower than the elevation of the levee crest. The grade change at this location includes a concrete stop-log structure, which can be closed during flood events. The elevation ofNorwood A venue is approximately 5 feet lower than the crest elevation of the adjacent ARO 1 levee. The grade change at this location includes a concrete stop-log structure that can be closed during flood events.

4.1.1.5. Encroachments and Penetrations. According to a draft, Revision 0, June 2008, Phase I Geotechnical Data Report prepared by URS, land use on the landside of the ARO 1 consists predominantly of residential development (located between approximately LM 0.00 and LM

2.09). Martin Luther King, Jr. Junior High School was located between approximately LM 0.91 and LM 0.95. Encroachments on ARO 1 included one railroad crossing, three roadway crossings,

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
one bike path crossing, commercial improvements, and residential improvements. The railroad crossing is near AROl LM 0.00. The three roadways are Norwood Avenue, Rio Linda Boulevard, and Marysville Boulevard. The bike path is approximately 200 feet east of Altos Avenue. The elevations of the bike path, Rio Linda Boulevard and Marysville Boulevard were approximately the same as the crest elevation of the adjacent ARO 1 levee. The railroad and Norwood A venue have stop-log closure structures. Pumping plants (Sumps 154 and 159) with water control structures crossing the levee are located at approximately LM 0.04 and LM 1.20 near the landside toe of the levee. The following list of levee penetrations was presented in the URS 2008 report:

TABLE 9- AROl LEVEE ENCROACHMENT AND PENETRATION LOG
Approximate Levee
Penetration Description Mile of AROl
• One l-inch communication cable through the levee, 3 feet below 0.02 the crown.
• City of Sacramento Pumping Plant
• Two 30-inch and one 36-inch concrete encased pipes through the levee, 9.4 feet below the crown.

0.04 • One 12-inch pipe through the levee, 7.8 feet below the crown. • Discharge structure, including flap gates on waterside toe . • One CMP riser on waterside slope .
• Two 48-inch diameter abandoned pipes .
• One 4-inch communication line through the levee, 5 feet below the

0.05 crown.
• One 36-inch concrete sewer line through the levee, 20 feet below

0.40 the crown.
• Norwood A venue crosses the levee .

0.67 • Top of pavement elevation approximately 5 feet below the crown. •

0.67 • One 4-inch line through levee, 1.5 feet below the crown . • One 12-inch concrete water line through the levee, 2.5 feet below 0.68 the crown.
• One 66-inch sewer line through the levee, 27 feet below the

1.18 crown.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
TABLE 9- AROl LEVEE ENCROACHMENT AND PENETRATION LOG (continued) Approximate Levee
Penetration Description Mile of AROl
• City of Sacramento Drainage Plant.
• One 36-inch pipe through the levee, 7 feet below the crown . • One 1 2-inch pipe through the levee, 6. 7 feet below the crown . • Two 48-inch and one 12-inch pipe through the levee, 5 feet below 1.20 the crown.
• Flap gate on crest.
• Siphon breaker on waterside slope. Discharge structure on waterside toe.
• Bike path crosses the levee. Top of pavement elevation 1.21 approximately adjacent to crown elevation.
• One 30-inch water line through the levee, 4.5 feet below the 1.21 crown.

1.22 • One 15-inch line through the levee, 16 feet below the crown. • Rio Linda Boulevard crosses the levee .
• Top of pavement elevation approximately adjacent to crown elevation. Floodgates in the channel.

1.29 • One 6-inch, one 8-inch, and one 16-inch line through the levee, 8 feet below the crown.
• One 6-inch and one 12-inch line through the levee, 14 feet below the crown.

1.35 • One 15-inch line through the levee, II feet below the crown. • One 15-inch line through the levee, 8.5 feet below the crown. One

1.58 6-inch and one 4-inch line through the levee. Flap gate on crest. • One 15-inch line through the levee, 8.5 feet below the crown . 1.78 Flap gate on crest.
• One 15-inch line through the levee, 8.5 feet below the crown . 1.95 Flap gate on crest. Discharge structure on waterside toe.

1.96 • One 6-inch line through the levee, 25 feet below the crown . • One 15-inch line through the levee, 15 feet below the crown . 2.08 • Flap gate on crest.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

4.1.2. Segment AR2B- Left Bank NEMDC.

4.1.2.1. Design Level of Protection. Along the Natomas Canal the grade of the original adopted flood plane varied from Elevation 35.3 feet U.S.E.D. at the American River to Elevation

39.6 feet U.S.E.D. at its junction with Linda Creek. The original levee grade provided for a freeboard of at least 3 feet. The original design flow in Natomas Canal from American River to Arcade Creek was 16,000 cubic feet per second.

4.1.2.2. Embankments. According to the Standard Operation and Maintenance Manual (revised) for the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, dated May 1955, the levees were constructed generally with a crown width of 20 feet, with lands ide slopes of 2.0H: IV and riverside slopes of 3.0H: IV.

According to a draft, Revision 0, June 2008, Phase l Geotechnical Data Report prepared by URS, the existing levee crest elevations along the eastern NEMDC levee (including both levee segments AR2A and AR2B) range from approximately 43 feet (NA VD 88) near the south end (LM 0.00 of AR2B) to approximately 45 feet near the north end (near Dry Creek) with an average crest elevation of 44 feet. Landside ground surface elevations along the eastern NEMDC levee range from approximately 17 feet near the south end to approximately 24 feet near the north end with an average elevation of 21 feet. The observed levee heights (lands ide toe to crest) range from approximately 26 feet near the south end to approximately 21 feet near the north end. The width of the crest along the eastern NEMDC levee range from approximately 16 to 20 feet. The surface of the levee crest is generally graveled, but includes a paved bike path ncar the south end. Landside slope inclinations are approximately 2H: 1 V. Waterside slope inclinations are approximately 2.5H: 1 V. In general, crest elevations along the eastern NEMDC levee prior to the improvements constructed between 1994 and 1996 ranged from approximately 39 feet (south end) to 44 feet (north end). Crest elevations in 2008 along the eastern NEMDC levee range from approximately 43 feet (south end) to 45 feet (north end). As part of the levee raising, the eastern NEMDC levee was also widened, generally toward the waterside, by as much as about 50 feet at the waterside toe. Landside or waterside fill slopes were typically keyed into the native soils at the base. The keyways were typically 10 feet wide and 1 to 2 feet deep. Levee fill for these improvements came from local borrow areas.

According to a report prepared by Wahler Associates in 1987, levee materials encountered in the borings along the Natomas Canal consisted of soft to firm, moderately plastic sandy clay. A " hardpan" layer about 5 to 10 feet thick was encountered in the foundation beneath the levee in several of their borings and in most of the borings from the previous Corps investigation in 1954.

The "hardpan" material was usually described as a "cemented" material, ranging from sandy silt

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
to sandy clay. In some of their borings, the material did not exhibit a high degree of the cementation and the blow counts were somewhat lower, indicating a softer material. However, the material was still considerably stronger than the overlying clay, and definitely represented a stronger base layer. A firm clay layer about 5 feet thick was also encountered in some of the borings above the "hardpan" layer, but seemed to be absent under the main levee section.

4.1.2.3. Floodwalls. Shott sections offloodwall are located adjacent to the West El Camino A venue bridge abutment.

4.1.2.4. Drainage Structures. The following is a list of original drainage structures in AR2B as shown in the Operation and Maintenance Manual:

TABLE 10 - AR2B ORIGINAL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
Approx.

AR2B Description Reference (PDF Filename)
Levee Mile
Drainage structure 30"
SAC RDxx Unitll8Pt2 BkE NatomasCnlArcade

0.48 corrugated metal pipe, - - - -
drainage pump, landside CrMagpieCrChnl. pdf

1.0 Drainage structure, 12" SAC RDxx Unitl18Pt2 BkE NatomasCnlArcade - - - steel CrMagpieCrChnl. pdf

4.1.2.5. Encroachments and Penetrations. Land use on the landside of AR2B includes an abutting rai I road embankment along the northern fraction of the levee segment and commercial/industrial development along the southern fraction. Union Pacific Railroad owns and operates the railroad tracks. Construction of the railroad embankment preceded construction of the eastern NEMDC levee. The centerline of the closest (westernmost) track is approximately 3 5 to 60 feet east of the eastern NEMDC levee alignment. Elevations of the rai I road tracks range from about 33 feet at the south end of AR2B to about 24 feet at the north end of AR2A. The tracks are commonly 10 to 13 feet below adjacent crest elevations. Two roadways cross the levee at the Arden-Garden Connector and at West El Camino Avenue. A pumping plant with water control structure crossing the levee is at approximately LM 0.50 near the levee's landside toe. The following list of levee penetrations was presented in the URS June 2008 draft repott:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
TABLE 11- AR2B LEVEE ENCROACHMENT AND PENETRATION LOG
Approximate Levee
Penetration Description Mile of AR2B

0.03 to 1.40 • One l-inch communication cable through the levee • One 24-inch pipe through 30-inch sleeve, 2.8 feet below the

0.49 crown. Discharge structure including flap gate and slide gate on waterside toe.
• City of Sacramento Pumping Plant 153 .
• One 36-inch concrete pipe through the levee, 5.2 feet below the

0.50 crown.
• Discharge structure, including flap gates on waterside toe . • One siphon breaker on waterside slope .
• One siphon breaker on the landside slope .
• El Camino A venue crosses the levee . 0.66
• Top of pavement elevation approximately 4 feet below the crown . • One 1.5-foot by 2.2-foot concrete encased fiber conduit through 0.73 the levee, 5 feet below the crown.
• One 36-inch abandoned (plugged with concrete) pipe through the 0.81 levee, 20 feet below the crown .

0.97 • One 20-inch line transverse to the levee, 86 feet below the crown . • Two 12-inch lines through the levee, 3 feet below the crown . 0.98 • One 6-inch line through the levee, 2.5 feet below the crown .

The Arden-Garden Connector Bridge at LM 0.38 which passes over the levee is not shown in Table 11 above.

The Sacramento City Sump 84 was not observed in the field during the levee inspection. The sump may be a lift station that directs water across the railroad alignment instead of discharging through the levee.

4.1.3. Segment AR03- Right Bank American River.

4.1.3.1. Design Level of Protection. Along the right bank of the American River within AR03 the grade of the original adopted flood plane varied from Elevation 41.8 feet U.S.E.D. at the upstream end to Elevation 35.3 feet U.S.E.D. at its junction with the Natomas Canal. The

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
original levee grade provided for a freeboard of at least 3 feet. The original design flow in the American River within AR03 was 180,000 cubic foot per second.

4.1.3.2. Embankments. According to the Standard Operation and Maintenance Manual (revised) for the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, dated May 1955, the levees were constructed generally with a crown width of20 feet, with landside slopes of2.0H: IV and riverside slopes of 3.0H: IV.

According to a report prepared by Wahler Associates in 1987, in general the levees and foundation along the American River consisted of pervious, nonplastic, sandy silts and silty sands, typically with about 40 to 60 percent fines. In general, the levee materials were medium dense and the foundation materials were loose.

According to a 2000 USACE report, at the American River right bank levee near NEMDC, the levee consisted of non plastic to low plasticity silt with sand, sandy silt, and, to a lesser extent, lean clay and silty sand. The consistency of the levee material varied from soft to very stiff. The foundation predominately consisted of nonplastic to low plasticity silt, silt with sand, and lean clay. The consistency of this material varied from soft to stiff. Also encountered in the foundation, to a lesser extent, was sandy silt and silty sand. Boring 2F-97-11, the only boring drilled to a significant depth in this reach, encountered firm to dense clayey sand and silty sand at 38 to 55 feet below the top of levee. Underlying this material was a 7-foot thick layer of poorly graded sand with silt and clay.

Additional subsurface exploration was conducted by the Soil Design Section ofUSACE, Sacramento District in 2001. It was stated in their report ofFebruary 2001 that the levee consisted of non plastic to low plasticity silt with sand, sandy silt, and, to a lesser extent, lean clay and silty sand. Also, the material in the levee downstream of Del Paso Boulevard was not homogeneous at it contained numerous lenses of silty sand interbedded in the fine grained levee material. The consistency of the levee material varied from soft to very stiff. The foundation predominately consisted of silt, silt with sand, sandy silt, silty sand, and clayey sand. Boring 2F97-ll encountered a 10-foot thick layer of poorly graded sand with silt and clay (SP-SC) at a depth of 35 feet below the foundation contact. This was the only location where relatively permeable soil was encountered. Consistency of the cohesive foundation materials varied from soft to hard, while the density of the cohesionless foundation materials varied from loose to very dense. (The two reports in the previous two paragraphs referenced the same boring log and present somewhat different subsurface conditions.)
According to a 2007 draft Technical Review Memorandum prepared by URS as part of the Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations (Task Order 24), slurry cutoff walls were installed in AR03 . The following is a summary of the status of slurry wall construction as of2007:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
TABLE12-AR03RECENTIMPROVEMENTS
River Mile Note Segment/Levee .\1ile

1.74 to 3.15
No slurry cutoff wall
LM 2.8 to 2.5 of AR03
improvement
Included gaps R2 and R3A; gaps Slurry cutoff wall

3.15 to 5.2 RIA and R3 (closed); LM 2.5 of
approximately 60 feet deep AR03 to LM 4.0 ofMAlO

4.1.3.3. Drainage Structures. The following is a list of original drainage structures in AR03 as shown in the Operation and Maintenance Manual:

TABLE 13- AR03 ORIGINAL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
Approx.

AR03 Description Reference (PDF Filename)
Levee Mile

1.48 Drainage structure 30"steel, SAC RDxx Unitll8Pt2 BkE NatomasCnlArca - - - - pump landside (Sump 152) deCrMagpieCrChnl. pdf
Drainage structure, 2-36"
SAC RDxx Unitll8Pt2 BkE NatomasCniArca

2.27 corrugated metal pipe, - - -
pump lands ide (Sump 151) deCrMagpieCrChnl.pdf

2.83 Drainage structure, 24" steel SAC RDxx Unit118Pt2 BkE NatomasCniArca - - - deCrMagpieCrChn l. pdf

3.09 Drainage structure, 4" steel
SAC RDxx Unitll8Pt2 BkE NatomasCnlArca - - - -
deCrMagpieCrChnl.pdf

3.22 Drainage structure 12" steel SAC RDxx Unitll8Pt2 BkE NatomasCn\Arca - -' - - deCrMagpieCrChnl.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

4.1.3.4. Encroachments and Penetrations. Land use on the landside of AR03 consists predominantly of commercial/industrial developments, with Cal Expo Fairground located at the east end. There are three roadways (Del Paso Boulevard, Highway 160, Capital City Freeway) and two railroads (Union Pacific, Southern Pacific) crossing the AR03 levee. The elevation of Del Paso Boulevard is lower than the crest elevation of the adjacent AR03 levee. The grade change at this location consists of a closure structure, completed with concrete abutments and hinged steel doors, that can be closed during flood events. The elevation of the Union Pacific railroad just east of Del Paso Boulevard is also lower than the crest elevation of the adjacent AR03 levee. The grade change at this location consists of a concrete stop log structure that can be closed during flood events. The elevation of the Southern Pacific railroad is approximately the same as the crest elevation of the adjacent AR03 levee. The Highway 160 twin bridges and the Capital City Freeway bridge cross the AR03 levee above the levee crest. Remnants of an abandoned Southern Pacific railroad spur was observed along the AR03 lands ide toe on both sides of Lathrop Way. Two pumping plants (Sumps 151 and 152) with water control structures crossing the levee are located near the lands ide toe of the AR03 levee. During the subject levee inspection, a pumping plant was observed west of Lathrop Way with a 24-inch pipe crossing the levee. A sign on the building reads "City of North Sacramento Pumping Plant- 1953" . The pumping plant appeared to be abandoned. The Sacramento City Sump 83 was not observed in the field during the subject levee inspection. The sump may be a lift station that directs water across the railroad alignment instead of discharging through the levee.

4.1.3.5. Closure Structures. A closure structure is located on the AR03 levee where it intersects Del Paso Boulevard. The structure consists of concrete abutments with hinged steel doors. The gate is normally left open with the hinged doors stored in pockets in the concrete abutments. Closure of the gate is undertaken based on water rising to a specified mark on the adjacent bike path. A stop log structure is located on the AR03 levee where it intersects the Union Pacific railroad located just east of Del Paso Boulevard.

4.1.4. Segment AR3B (MAlO and MAll)- Right Bank American River.

4.1.4.1. Design Level of Protection. The original project design flood was 115,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), the project release from the upstream Folsom Reservoir. In accordance with the desires of local interests, the original levee heights were set as to provide a freeboard of not less than 5 feet above the design flood plane. Further, since the left bank levee was already higher than the criterion would require, the subject right bank levee freeboard was increased to provide the same protection as that provided by the left bank levee at the point where it would first be

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
over-topped in a greater-than-design flood. Such increase in project levee height was found applicable to the reach upstream of the "H" Street Bridge. Downstream, such increase was not applicable. With a minimum freeboard of 3 feet, the project would be capable of carrying about 152,000 cfs (a possible peak release from Folsom Reservoir during a Standard Project Flood).

The grade of the original flood plane profile varied from Elevation 64.6 feet U.S.E.D. at centerline station 28+05 on the upper end near Carmichael Bluffs to Elevation 40.8 feet U.S.E.D. at centerline station 446+00 at the lower end of the project.

4.1.4.2. Embankments. According to the Operation and Maintenance Manual for the American River Flood Control Project, dated November 1959, the levees were built with landside slope of

2.0H:1V, crown width of20 feet, and riverside slope of3.0H:IV.

According to the 1956 USACE Design Memorandum, a preliminary soils reconnaissance was made in April 1956. This disclosed that the foundation materials in the lower part of the reach in which the levee was to be constructed varied from sands to sandy silts underlain by a clayey material. The existing levees in this area have been constructed of the surface sands and silts.

Progressing upstream, t~e surface foundation materials appeared to have a greater amount of fines but were underlain by sand and gravel deposits.

According to a repoti prepared by Wahler Associates in 1987, in general the levees and foundation along the American River consist of pervious, nonplastic, sandy silts and silty sands, typically with about 40 to 60 percent fines. In general, the levee materials are medium dense and the foundation materials are loose.

According to a 2000 USACE report, at the American River right bank levee near Howe A venue, the levee predominately consists of loose to dense, nonplastic silty sand, and to a lesser extent, stiff to very stiff sandy silt and sandy clay. The foundation consists of a 10 to 30-foot thick top stratum comprised of loose to firm silty sand. Underlying the top stratum is a 15- to 25-foot layer of pervious sands, gravels, and cobbles. Below the pervious layer is a relatively impermeable layer of hard silt and clay.

According to a 2000 USACE report, at the American River right bank levee near Jacob Lane, the levee consists of firm to dense, nonplastic silty sand and sandy silt. The levee material is consistent throughout the entire study reach. The foundation consists of a very loose to finn silty sand to sandy silt top stratum. The top stratum is from 9 to 30 feet thick with the lesser thickness occurring at the upstream end of the study reach. Underlying the top stratum is about a 10-foot thick pervious layer consisting of sand, gravel, and cobbles. Underlying the pervious layer is silt, sandy clay, clayey sand, and fat clay.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
·' .

According to a 2007 draft Technical Review Memorandum prepared by URS as part of the Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations (Task Order 24), slurry cutoff walls were installed in MA I 0 and MA 11. The following is a summary of the status of slurry wall construction as of 2007:

TABLE 14- MAlO AND MAll RECENT IMPROVEMENTS
River Mile Note Segment/Levee Mile
Slurry cutoff wall
Included gaps R2 and R3A; gaps

3.15 to 5.2
approximately 60 feet deep
RIA and R3 (closed); LM 2.5 of
AR03 to LM 4.0 ofMAIO

5.2 to 5.6 Slurry cutoff wall Included gap R4 (closed); LM 4.0 approximately 72 feet deep ofMA10 to LM 3.4 ofMAIO
Slurry cutoff wall
Included gaps R5, R6, R7, R8,

5.6 to 7.6 and R9; LM 3.4 ofMA10 to LM
approximately 60 feet deep 1.5 ofMAIO

7.6 to 9.15 Slurry cutoff wall Included gap RIO; LM 1.5 of approximately 72 feet deep MAIO to LM 0.0 ofMA10

9. 15 to I 0. 7 5 Slurry cutoff wall Included gap Rll (closed); LM approximately 72 feet deep 4.0 ofMAll to LM 2.5 MAll)
I 0.75 to 11.3 Slurry cutoff wall LM 2.5 ofMA11 to LM 2.0 of approximately 62 feet deep MAll

11.3 to 13.8
No slurry cutoffwall LM 2.0 ofMA11 to LM 0.1 of
improvement MAll

4.1.4.3. Drainage Structures. The following is a list of original drainage structures in MAIO as shown in the Operation and Maintenance Manual:

TABLE 15- MAlO ORIGINAL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
Approx.

MAlO Description Reference (PDF Filename)
Levee Mile

1.34 8" pipe gate valve riverside crown Vol4_ OManual_AmericanRiverPartl.pdf

1.50 12" pipe riser unit riverside
Vol4_ OManual_ AmericanRiverPartl.pdf concrete-encased steel

2.43 12" pipe riser unit riverside
Vol4_ OManuai_AmericanRiverPartl.pdf concrete-encased steel

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
TABLE 15- MAlO ORIGINAL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES (continued) Approx.

MAlO Description Reference (PDF Filename)
Levee Mile

2.79 3611 corrugated metal riser unit
Vol4_ OManual_ AmericanRiverPart1 .pdf riverside

3.93 7-48 11 concrete pipe Vol4_ OManual_AmericanRiverPart l .pdf

3.93 3611 concrete pipe Vol4_0Manual_AmericanRiverPat1l .pdf The following is a list of original drainage structures in MA 11 as shown in the Operation and Maintenance Manual:

TABLE 16- MAll ORIGINAL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
Approx.

MAll Description Reference (PDF Filename)
Levee Mile

0.34 1.5 II pipe Vol4_ OManual_ AmericanRiverPart 1.pdf

0.41 1.5 11 pipe Vol4 OManual AmericanRiverPartl.pdf

0.46 2.5 II pipe Vol4_0Manuai_AmcricanRiverPartl.pdf

0.50 1.5 "pipe Vol4 _ OManual_ AmericanRiverPart 1. pdf

0.54 1.5 " pipe Vol4_0Manual AmericanRiverPartl.pdf

0.63 1.5 II pipe Vol4 _ OManual_AmericanRiverPart 1.pdf

0.64 1.5 II pipe Vol4 _ OManual_ AmericanRiverPart 1.pdf

0.68 1.5 II pipe Vol4_0Manual AmericanRiverPa11l.pdf

3.52 811 gate valve, riverside crown Vol4_ OManual_AmericanRiverPart1.pdf

3.56 3-2411 concrete pipes Vol4 _ OManual_ AmericanRiverPat1l.pdf

3.56 2411 concrete pipe Vol4_ OManual_AmericanRiverPart1.pdf

3.95 10" pipe Vol4_ OManual_AmericanRiverPa11l.pdf

4.02 611 pipe Vol4_ OManual_AmericanRiverPart1.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

4.1.4.4. Encroachments and Penetrations. Land use on the landside ofMAlO and MAll consists predominantly of residential developments and occasional commercial development, with Cal Expo Fairground located at the west end of MA I 0. There are two roadways that end at the levee (Estates Drive and Jacob Lane). There are two roadways that nearly cross over the levee at grade (HatTington Way and River Walk Way). There are three roadway bridges ("H" Street, Howe Avenue, Watt Avenue) and one pedestrian bridge (Guy West Bridge) crossing the MA I 0 and MA II levees. The elevations of these roadways and bridges are approximately the same as the crest elevation of the adjacent MA I 0 and MA 11 levee. Six pumping plants (Sumps D05, 95 , I 09, D43, Kadema Drive Sump, and Harrington Way Sump) with water control structures crossing the levee are located near the land side toe of the MA 10 and MA 11 levees. A Sherriffs training academy and a sewage treatment plant are on the waterside of the levee near River Walk Way. The elevation of the levee at the Arden Way crossing is lower than the MAll levee crest, and sand bags will be used to close the gap during flood events at this location. In the areas north of Arden Way, the MA 11 levee is located within a residential neighborhood with some houses located on the waterside of the levee. Advanced permissions from the property owners were required to enter these properties to conduct the levee inspection.

4.2. Past Floods and Levee Performance. The waterside levee face ofMAlO near Howe Street was eroded over about 350 feet during the January and February 1963 storms (DWR 1964) when Folsom Dam releases were about 110,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) as measured at the USGS gage at Fair Oaks (11446500). On 23 December 1964 flows on the American River reached about 115,000 cfs, or about the maximum expected release from Folsom Dam, but no damage was reported.

URS (June 2008) reported that two flood events, one in February 1986 and the other in January 1997, resulted in high water conditions along their NEMDC East Study Area levees. Of these events, the 1986 event had a more severe impact on the levees in the NEMDC East Study Area.

In February 1986, Sacramento experienced 10 inches of rain fall in 11 days. Inflows from the American River into the Folsom Reservoir were more than the reservoir was designed to handle.

After two days of releases at design level ( 115,000 cfs) from Folsom Dam, releases were increased to 134,000 cfs. Water levels during the 1986 flood event were recorded at less than 2 feet below the crest of levee along the southern end of the NEMDC.

The record 1986 flood resulted in significant damage in the Sacramento Area, including overtopping of levees and flooding of properties in North Sacramento in the subject System and upstream areas. The overtopping seems to have resulted from backwater from very high water levels in the Sacramento and American Rivers combined with large floods in tributaries, such as Dry and Arcade Creeks. The flood demonstrated that the NEMDC and its tributary levees were not high enough and did not extend far enough upstream to contain the design flood.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Following the 1986 flood, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) was created and, with the State of California Reclamation Board and the USACE, undertook the American River Watershed Investigation (ARWI). The ARWI adopted a 200-year standard for flood protection for the American River and recommended raising and strengthening of levees combined with upstream storage and improvements at Folsom Dam to provide this level of protection. While the storage component was not authorized, SAFCA undertook levee improvements in the subject levee system as part of their North Area Local Project (NALP). The broad hydraulic standard adopted for the improvements was to set levee crest elevations so that they would contain design inflows for the maximum water surface anticipated in the American River at the mouth of the NEMDC under any potential upstream storage or improvement alternative, during a 200-year or greater flood, with suitable freeboard .

The next major regional flood in the Sacramento Area, in January 1997, occurred soon after the levee improvements were completed on Arcade Creek but before the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) pumping plant was operational. It produced flows and water levels in the Sacramento that were comparable to those in 1986 but releases in the American River were contained to 115,000 cfs and were not combined with unusually high peak flows on the tributaries to the NEMDC. This storm resulted in no overtopping or failure of the subject System levees. However, failures of levees upstream of Sacramento raised concerns about the stability of Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees in response to underseepage.

Following this storm, the north levees along the American River were upgraded with slurry walls.

The next large regional storm in the Sacramento Area occurred in late December 2005 and early January 2006. Peak water levels in the Sacramento River were below those in 1986 and 1997 but were sustained for several weeks and resulted in significant bank erosion. Large peak flows occurred on Dry and Arcade Creeks on December 31st but were combined with low to moderate releases to the American River from Folsom Dam. No overtopping of levees or levee failures was reported in the subject System and only minor erosion was observed along the American River.
• No seepage or boil areas were indentified on levees in the NEMDC East Study Area based on the review of available repotts and interviews. • No areas ofwaterside instability were identified on levees in the NEMDC East Study Area based on the review of available reports and interviews. • Previous reports and interviews did not identify any specific evidence of historic lands ide instability in the NEMDC East Study Area.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
• Few instances of waterside erosion had been reported along the levees of the NEMDC East Study Area. In 2005 , erosion was noted along the waterside slope near levee mile l. 96 of ARO I. The waterside slope in this area was repaired and armored in 2005 using geotextile fabric, soil, and rock. Minor erosion was noted near the waterside toe at various locations in the NEMDC East Study Area at the time of the URS Phase 1 exploration program perf01med for the Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program.

4.3. Project Condition Based on Prior Periodic Inspection. The current Periodic Inspection (PI) is the first PI, so there is no prior PI. Routine levee inspections were conducted by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). The most recent DWR levee inspection in the system documents provided was conducted in Fall of 2008, and the results were presented in a written report NAOOOl (PDF filename: NA000l_FA2008.pdf). According to this report, Segment AROl was inspected by DWR on 18 September 2008 and 23 encroachments were documented, and an "Acceptable" rating was assigned. Segment AR2B was inspected on 18 September 2008 and no deficiencies were noted, and an "Acceptable" rating was assigned. Segment AR03 was inspected on 18 September 2008 and no deficiencies were noted, and an "Acceptable" rating was assigned. Segment AR3 B (MA I 0 and MA 11) was inspected on 18 September 2008 and 3 deficiencies were noted in MA 10, and an "Acceptable" rating was assigned. DWR 's website summarized their 2009 levee inspections. All segments in the subject system were rated "Acceptable". According to the American River Flood Control District (ARFCD), the part of the MAll levee east of Arden Way had not been inspected by DWR for many years. ARFCD have not witnessed any DWR inspection of that reach or had such documentation included in the biannual DWR inspection reports for the last I 0 years. It is assumed that this part of the levee was not inspected during the 2008 or 2009 DWR's levee inspections.

The following is a summary of history of system deficiencies based on the system documents provided for the periodic inspection:
• According to the December 2007 URS Technical Review Memorandum (draft) for the "American River Levee Study Area", stream bank erosion is a significant concern on the Lower American River. Erosion impacts nearly the entire length of river in the study area. In some cases, toe erosion has led to local slumping and slope failures. The review indicated the river system was degrading, or down cutting, in response to Folsom and Nimbus dam construction. Dam construction captured the lower American River's sediment supply (Ayres, 2003, Draft Report, Lower American River- FEMA Certification, July 2003). In some reaches, the river has down cut to bedrock, indicating the river may erode laterally. Ayres Associates conducted a field review and found erosion was occurring even at low flow conditions of7,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Ayres, 2003). Erosion potential is particularly high where levees are close to the main

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
channel (reach from River Mile 6 to 11, corresponding to LM 3.0 of MAlO to LM 2.0 of MA I I, respectively). This reach has a narrow floodway, resulting in high flood stage velocities. Bank and levee protection and erosion repairs in the subject levee system have been built by the USACE, ARFCD, DWR, SAFCA, and private interests from various materials (riprap, cobbles, concrete rubble, concrete walls and gabions) to various standards over the past fifty years or more. There is no up-to-date, comprehensive map showing the revetment constructed along the American River. Ayres ( 1997; based on WET 1991) and Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc ( 1995) both provided inventory maps from USACE records at that time but they are no longer current. • The earliest documented erosion protection works on the American River north levee were constructed around the time of the mid-1950s levee upgrades. These improvements included cobble revetment with no toe protection that extended from 300 feet upstream of the H Street Bridge to 500 feet downstream to compensate for the narrow flood channel (USACE 1956). The report also notes that 3,600 feet of bank protection were constructed by the Sacramento District in MAll, downstream of the Del Paso Rock Company. These works followed a levee breach in the November 1950 flood . The nature and location of these protective works are no longer known.
• The 1986 flood resulted in significant bank erosion along the American River. Water and Engineering Technology, Inc. (WET 1991) provided some description of the damage and the response. Apparently, emergency works were built on the south (left) bank near CSUS but not on the north (right) bank. The WET report also noted damage to right bank protection at RM 8.70 (LM 0.7 ofMA10) (failure of rock dumped by private interests) that had not been repaired by 1991. Fallowing the flood, the Arden 2 sewer force main crossing [this may be known locally as the Arden Interceptor] on the right bank upstream of the Guy West Bridge was repaired. The repair consisted of placing a rock trench parallel to and upstream of the sewer line that extended about 350 feet back from the bank. This site, which is across the river from the new water intake, suffered considerable bank retreat upstream of the trench in the 1990s. The other permitted repair project started about 2,000 feet downstream of Howe Street and continued for about 1,200 feet. It consisted of re-grading the bank and placing a !-foot thick layer of riprap with no toe be1m that was covered with soil. It is unclear if this protection is still in place along this bank. The County also proposed repairs about 1.2 miles downstream of H Street but, apparently, these were not constructed.
• The WET (1991) report identified significant bank erosion sites on the north bank at RM

3.3, 3.8, 5.4 and 8.5 (LM 2.5 of AR03, LM 1.7 of AR03, 3.9 of MAIO, and 0.9 ofMAlO, respectively), totaling about 2,800 feet, which had not been repaired by 1990. They also identified a high priority site for levee slope protection at RM 8.55 that extended along about I ,300 feet of bank. It is not known if these sites were repaired under the

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
'---
Sacramento River Bank Protection Program, other agencies funding programs, or not repaired.
• Following various studies of the American River that were patily summarized in Ayres Associates ( 1997), SAFCA, US ACE and the Reclamation Board designed and built bank protection at five sites on the American River as part of an Anticipatory Erosion Program. Four of the sites were on the left (south) bank but Site 5 was built on the north bank at RM 8. 7 along 1,500 feet of bank. The project was designed to provide aquatic and other riparian habitat and the management and monitoring of the planted vegetation is described in an Appendix to the "Supplement to the Standard Operation and Maintenance Manual, Sacramento River Flood Control Project, Unit No. 118 -Part No. 2". SAFCA (2009) reports recent results of the monitoring and maintenance programs. • The Ayres ( 1997) study also reviewed requirements identified for levee slope protection that were prepared by the USACE ( 1991 ), reviewed overbank velocities and recommended repairs at four sites in the subject levee system. These were at the Northgate Boulevard crossing of the NEMDC [which is outside of the subject levee system], at RM 1.9 near the Del Paso Road gate (LM 3.2 of AR03), at RM 6.40 (LM 2.8 of MA I 0) in a constricted reach and at RM 7.2 (LM 2.1 of MA 1 0). The total length of erosion protection recommended was 9,400 feet; most of which was required at the RM

6.4 and RM 7.2 sites. Again, it is not known if these particular repairs were constructed or not.
• As part of the cetiification process for the American River levees, some bank and levee slope protection projects were completed by the USACE and SAFCA in 2003 and 2004.

These repairs were mostly at sites identified as potentially erodible by 2-dimensional hydraulic modeling, as reported by Ayres Associates (2004). Most of these projects were on the south levee. It is not known if any repairs were completed on the north levee. The most recent bank repairs have occun·ed as part of the Sacramento River Bank Protection Program and the Emergency Levee Repair Program that began in 2006. Repairs have been completed on the south bank of the American River but none are reported on the north bank to date.
• Inspection of the small-scale drawings reproduced in the O&M Manual for Unit 118, Part 2, suggested that no erosion protection was constructed on the NEMDC or Arcade levee waterside faces as part of the improvements in the mid-1950s. The SAFCA NALP design drawings for Arcade Creek included erosion protection designs. Erosion protection seemed to have been primarily placed to protect the bed and slopes beneath bridges and at the outlet or outfall of pipes passing through the levee. Revetment was placed beneath the Rio Linda Boulevard Bridge when it was reconstructed in the late

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
1980s. In the late 1990s, the ARFCD repaired revetment at four sites along the south levee between Rio Linda and Marysville Boulevard.
• It is not known if revetment was placed as pari of the levee improvements on the NEMDC. It is possible that erosion protection may not be visible during inspection on these levees as repairs often included filling and covering the revetment with soil and then planting with grass. It is understood that repairs and maintenance by the ARFCD have adopted this design. If so, the ARFCD will be the best source of information on the location of recent repairs on the NEMDC or Arcade Creek. • A 2000 USACE report indicates that at the American River right bank levee near NEMDC, the previous high water level was from 3 to 4 feet below the design water surface of"l60,000 cfs plus 1.5 feet". This high water level occurred during the February 1986 flood. After the 1986 flood, a crack developed at the waterside edge of the levee crown. The crack began about 500 feet east of the State Highway 160 bridge (LM 3.2 of AR03) and extended upstream for a distance of about 1400 feet to LM 2.9 of AR03. Wahler Associates, under contract with USACE, investigated the crack. The final conclusion from Wahler Associates was that the crack likely developed as a result of instability of the waterside slope due to rapid drawdown. Since no other cracks were observed and the levee was not damaged except for the crack, no repair work was performed on the levee. There have been no other reports of levee instability or boils in this reach during both the February 1986 and January 1997 flood events. The maximum flows during both events were about 130,000 cfs for the 1986 event and 115,000 cfs for the 1997 event.
• The following was indicated in the December 2007 URS Technical Review Memorandum (draft): As part of American River WRDA99 Common Features Project, USACE re-evaluated the levee section on the right (north) bank of the American River ncar the NEMDC from about RM 1.7 to RM 3.1 (corresponding to LM 3.42 to LM 2.5 of AR03 ). Levees in this section range in height from about 10 to 18 feet with an average height of about 15 feet. Slurry cutoffwalls were not constructed along this section of the levee as part of the American River Right (Norih) Bank Common Features Project. At that time, the URS project team had not received the geotechnical report from USACE (2000), evaluating this levee. The URS project team reviewed the Supplemental Geotechnical Report prepared by the USACE in 2001, and the report concluded that this levee section did not meet minimum factors of safety for slope stability on the landside during flood stages and on the waterside slope during rapid drawdown. It further recommended constructing stability berms. As of 2007, this improvement work has not been completed, and USACE planned to re-evaluate remedial alternatives for this area.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
• It was stated in the December 2007 URS Technical Review Memorandum (draft) that, as part of American River WRDA99 Common Features Project, USACE re-evaluated this levee section on the right (north) bank from about Jacob Lane to Arden Way, from about RM 11.3 to RM 13.8 (corresponding to LM 1.9 to LM 0.1 ofMA11). Slurry cutoffwalls were not constructed along this section as part of the American River Right (North) Bank Common Features Project. Levee heights range from about 2 to 8.5 feet. The URS project team reviewed USACE' s 2001 geotechnical report, and report conclusions indicated the levee should perform adequately for a design water surface corresponding to river flow of 160,000 cfs plus 1.5 feet. Recommendations for this section are to increase crest width to 20 feet. This recommended improvement work has not been completed as of2007.
• Slurry cutoffwalls were installed in the right (north) bank American River levees between approximately River Miles 3.15 and 11.3 (LM 2.6 of AR03 and LM 2.1 of MA 11 ). These cutoff walls contain gaps because there were existing underground utilities in the levee, highway and bridge crossings, overhead restrictions, and other site constraints that interfered with the installation of slurry cutoff wall. As of 2007, some of the gaps were closed using jet grouting, but some are still open pending completion of analysis, review and approval, and availability of funding.

4.4. Accomplishments/Developments Since the Last Periodic Inspection. The current Periodic Inspection (PI) is the first PI, so there is no prior PI. No indications were found in the system documents regarding the status of the deficiencies identified in the 2008 routine levee inspection conducted by the Department of Water Resources.

4.5. Design Criteria Review. The criteria review was provided in the pre-inspection packet.

For results, see paragraph 5.2 of this report.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
,I
PART V. INSPECTION FINDINGS AND EVALUATIONS.

5.1. Results of Inspection.

5.1.1. Overall System.

5.1.1.1. System Summary. A Flood Damage Reduction Segment Inspection Report was prepared for each segment within the system. Each report summarizes conditions observed or information gathered during the inspection and provides ratings for each item I component of each segment. The reports provide rating guidelines and are presented in Appendix C of this report.

The USACE Levee Safety Officer has reviewed the findings of this Periodic Inspection and has assigned ratings to each segment and system. The segment and overall system ratings can be found in the LSO Approval Memorandum preceding the main text of this PI report.

5.1.1.2 Emergency Action Plan. Both ARFCD and the City of Sacramento maintain stockpiles of flood fighting materials. Inspection crew did not provide consultation regarding required quantity of supplies. ARFCD and the city staff recei ve flood fighting training. The district has a written plan with contact phone numbers. Mr. Tim Kerr, General Manager of ARFCD, is the flood flight supervisor.

5.1.2. Segment AROl- Left Bank Arcade Creek. A rating summary of the features and components is provided in Table 17. Features and components that received Minimally Acceptable or Unacceptable ratings are discuss in the sections following the table. Refer to Appendix C for more detailed information of the ARO 1 Segment.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
TABLE17-
AROl FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION SYSTEM INSPECTION RATING SUMMARY A=Acceptable M=Minimally Acceptable U=Unacceptable NIA=Not Applicable Feature Component Rating
Item 1, Operations and Maintenance Manuals M
General I terns Item 2, Emergency Supplies and Equipment A Item 3, Flood Preparedness and Training A
Item 1, Unwanted Vegetation Growth u
Item 2, Sod Cover A
Item 3, Encroachments u
Item 4, Closure Structures A
Item 5, Slope Stability A
Item 6, Erosion I Bank Caving M
Item 7, Settlement A
Levee Embankments
Item 8, Depressions I Rutting A
r--- . Item 9, Crackmg A
Item 10, Animal Control M
Item 11, Culverts I Discharge Pipes NA
Item 12, Riprap Revetments & Bank Protection A
Item 13, Revetments other than Riprap A
Item 14, Underseepage Relief Wells I Toe Drainage A
Systems
Item 15, Seepage A
Item 1, Unwanted Vegetation Growth A
Item 2, Encroachments A
Item 3, Closure Structures A
Item 4, Concrete Surfaces A
Item 5, Tilting, Sliding or Settlement of Concrete A
Floodwalls Structures
Item 6, Foundation of Concrete Structures A
Item 7, Monolith Joints A
Item 8, Underseepage Relief Wells I Toe Drainage NA
Systems
Item 9, Seepage A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

5.1.2.1. General Items.

5.1.2.1.1. Item 1, Operations and Maintenance Manuals. This component received a minimally acceptable rating because the O&M Manual does not include all modifications to the project since originally constructed, such as the raising the ARO 1 levee, construction of flood walls at the easterly end of AR01, and construction of pump stations. Until such time that the O&M Manual is completely revised, any alteration or modification must be documented in an addendum that includes as-built drawings and supporting data and information. Future revisions to the O&M Manual also need to incorporate current levee safety practices and requirements.

5.1.2.2. Levee Embankments.

5.1.2.2.1. Item 1, Unwanted Vegetation Growth. This component received an unacceptable rating mainly because relatively large trees were observed in the vegetation-free zone as defined in ETL 1110-2-571 (10 April 2009). Unwanted vegetation growth was observed in many areas (see Photo Nos. 1, 2, and 3). Many trees were observed along and near the landside toe, and occasional trees were observed on both the waterside and landside levee slopes. In some areas, tree stumps of relatively large cut trees were observed on the levee slopes. Heavy bushes were observed on the landside bench. This unwanted vegetation was located within the vegetationfree zone. The trees were generally well trimmed and did not hinder levee inspection. The objections to their presence are potential damage to the embankment if the trees are blown over and future decaying of roots within the levee embankment.

5.1.2.2.2. Item 3, Encroachments. This component received an unacceptable rating mainly because numerous encroachments were observed in the levee section, as well as the 20-foot-wide landside easement and the 15-foot-wide waterside easement as defined in Sacramento District Geotech SOP #3 ( 11 April 2008). Encroachments observed included debris, fences, gates, buried and aerial utilities, and bridges (see Photo Nos. 4, 5, and 6).

In some areas, significant amounts of debris were observed on both the landside and waterside slopes. Debris observed included yard clippings, appliances, fallen trees and tree limbs, and other miscellaneous debris. The presence of the accumulated debris during the inspection is the primary reason for the minimally acceptable rating for encroachments. During a subsequent trip to inspect floodwalls, ARFCD personnel were observed removing the debris. A small vault about 3 feet by 3 feet in size was observed at the waterside toe that appeared to be abandoned.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Wood and chain link fences were observed intermittently located parallel to, and about 8 to 10 feet in front of, the landside levee toe. In limited areas, fences were observed immediately at the toe of the lands ide slope. During the inspection, the limits of the project and/or the adjacent property lines were not provided. It is likely that most of the encroaching fences were built within the legal real estate boundaries, but some may extend beyond property lines. This could not be confirmed in the field. Fences constructed in such a way as to block inspection of the ground surface beyond the fence will inhibit identification of seepage problems and may pose an impediment to flood-fighting activities.

Numerous access gates were observed on the levee. Most gates were located on the levee crown.

Others were located on the landside and waterside ramps. In all instances, keys supplied by ARFCD opened locks on these gates. The gates were constructed of tubular steel and were found to be in good condition. However, no traffic barricades were observed at two locations, near the east end of AROl, where the streets dead-end at the levee. Tire tracks were observed on the landside levee slopes, at or near the dead-end streets. Traffic barricades should be improved to control unauthorized vehicle access.

There were several bridges crossing the ARO 1 levees, including a Union Pacific Railroad bridge at the western extent, the Norwood A venue, Rio Linda Boulevard, and Marysville Boulevard vehicular bridges. In addition , there is a pedestrian bridge on an old railroad alignment which is used as part of a regional bike trail. Typically, the bridges are supported by an abutment on the waterside levee slope and by piers on the waterside slope or toe. Other structural encroachments observed on the landside toe included buildings, a parking lot, and a brick wall.

Two pump stations on AROl were observed during the subject levee inspection. The pump stations are located approximately at levee miles (LM) 0.0 and 1.2. Associated utility vaults were observed on the crest at the waterside hinge, and outfall structures were observed on the waterside of the levee. The pump station near LM 0.0 features a monolithic concrete stairway.

Several types of utilities were observed on the levee. Numerous utility poles were observed on the landside toe; a few were observed at the landside hinge, particularly near bridges. Numerous utility pipes and conduits were hung from the bridges. The utilities were buried in the levee crown where the bridges intersect the levee. An access manhole for a sewer force main was observed on the waterside slope at the hinge. The access is constructed of corrugated metal pipe with a steel frame. A monitoring well was observed on the levee crest.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

5.1.2.2.3. Item 6, Erosion I Bank Caving. This component received a minimally acceptable rating mainly because erosion was observed in a few areas. Under the Norwood A venue Bridge, it appeared that soil may be eroding (see Photo No.7). No bank protection is in place.

Shortcrete or riprap should be installed to prevent further erosion. There was one instance where we encountered bank caving within Arcade Creek (see Photo No. 8). It appeared that riprap and geotextile had been installed to mitigate the erosion, but the riprap appeared displaced and was no longer buttressing the bank. These are the two issues that lead to the minimally acceptable rating. Minor erosion instances were observed on the landside and waterside levee slopes. Most instances were very minor and were due to foot traffic and/or moderate cuts in the landside slope to create stairs for pedestrian access. In some instances, rilling of soil was observed at the lands ide hinge and upper portion of the lands ide slope. 5 .1.2.2.4. Item 10, Animal Control. This component received a minimally acceptable rating mainly because numerous animal burrows were observed in the levee. The sponsor indicated that they maintain an active animal control program which includes flagging active rodent holes, baiting rodents, and grouting burrows. Many grout-filled burrows were observed during the levee inspection. However, many open animal burrows, flagged and un-flagged, were also observed during the levee inspection, indicating a more active animal control program is required (see Photo No. 9).

5.1.2.3. Floodwalls. The floodwalls are rated acceptable.

5.1.2.4. Interior Drainage System.

5.1.2.5. Pump Stations. There are no federally authorized pump stations in segment ARO 1.

5.1.2.6. Flood Damage Reduction Channels. Inspection of FDR channels were not included in the current scope ofwork and no inspections of the FDR channels were conducted.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

5.1.3. Segment AR2B -Left Bank NEMDC. A rating summary of the features and components is provided in Table 18. Features and components that received Minimally Acceptable or Unacceptable ratings are discuss in the sections following the table. Refer to Appendix C for more detailed information of the AR2B Segment.

TABLE18-
AR2B FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION SYSTEM INSPECTION RATING SUMMARY A=Acceptable M=Minimally Acceptable U=U nacceptable N/A=Not Applicable Feature Component Rating
Item 1, Operations and Maintenance Manuals M
General Items Item 2, Emergency Supplies and Equipment A Item 3, Flood Preparedness and Training A
Item 1, Unwanted Vegetation Growth M
Item 2, Sod Cover M
Item 3, Encroachments u
Item 4, Closure Structures NA
Item 5, Slope Stability M
Item 6, Erosion I Bank Caving A
Item 7, Settlement A
Levee Embankments
Item 8, Depressions I Rutting A
I tern 9, Cracking A
Item 10, Animal Control M
Item 11, Culverts I Discharge Pipes NA
Item 12, Riprap Revetments & Bank Protection NA
Item 13, Revetments other than Riprap NA
Item 14, Undcrseepage Relief Wells I Toe Drainage NA
Systems
Item 15, Seepage A
Item 1, Unwanted Vegetation Growth A
Item 2, Encroachments A
Floodwalls
Item 3, Closure Structures A
Item 4, Concrete Surfaces A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
TABLE 18-
AR2B FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION SYSTEM INSPECTION RATING SUMMARY A=Acceptable M=Minimally Acceptable U=U nacceptable N/A=Not Applicable Feature Component Rating
Item 5, Tilting, Sliding or Settlement of Concrete A
Structures
Item 6, Foundation of Concrete Structures A
Floodwalls
Item 7, Monolith Joints A
(continued) Item 8, Underseepage Relief Wells I Toe Drainage NA Systems
Item 9, Seepage A

5.1.3.1. General Items.

5.1.3.1.1 . Item 1, Operations and Maintenance Manuals. This component received a minimally acceptable rating because the O&M Manual does not include all modifications to the project since originally constructed, such as the raising the AR2B levee and construction and abandoning of pump stations. Until such time that the O&M Manual is completely revised, any alteration or modification must be documented in an addendum that includes as-built drawings and supporting data and information. Future revisions to the O&M Manual also need to incorporate current levee safety practices and requirements.

5.1.3.2. Levee Embankments.

5.1.3.2.1. Item l, Unwanted Vegetation Growth. This component received a minimally acceptable rating mainly because several trees up to 15 inches in diameter were observed not near but within 15 feet of the waterside toe ofthe levee (see Photo No. 11). The landside slope was generally free of excessively large vegetation. For most of the length of the AR2B segment, the levee features a railroad embankment adjacent to the upper flood controllandside slope.

There are many trees on and near the landside railroad embankment slope (see Photo No. 12).

According to the local sponsor, the ARFCD is not currently allowed to perform maintenance on

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
the lower portion of the railroad embankment. To develop the segment rating for Unwanted Vegetation Growth, trees below the upper levee slope were not included.

5.1.3.2.2. Item 2, Sod Cover. This component received a minimally acceptable rating because grass on the upper landside slope was sparse to non-existent or was in very poor health in many areas (see Photo No. 13). Isolated areas of missing sod cover was observed, especially near bridges. Grass on the waterside slopes appeared to be thick, lush and healthy.

5.1.3.2.3. Item 3, Encroachments. Encroachments received an Unacceptable rating. Railroadrelated debris has been discarded at several locations on the mid-slope bench where the railroad alignment is located. The debris consists of steel rails, wood rail ties, and other parts. There are numerous abandoned utility poles on the midslope bench between the levee and the railroad embankment. Though the utility poles predated the levee, now that they are abandoned they should be considered encroachments in the same manner as other debris. The property/easement line between the railroad and the levee was not known to the inspection team. For the purpose of this report, discarded or abandoned items between the railroad ballast and the toe of the levee slope were classified as encroachments. The existing encroachments are unlikely to hinder levee operations and maintenance.

5.1.3.2.4. Item 5, Slope Stability. This component received an minimally acceptable rating primarily because one area with instability potential was observed during the inspection. An approximately 400 feet by 100 feet pond was observed near the waterside toe (see Photo No. 14).

The pond appeared to be manmade. It was full of water so it was not possible to observe the underwater side slopes as well as the depth of the pond. According to Sacramento District Geotech SOP #3 ( 11 April 2008), ditches, ponds and other excavations should be located a minimum of 20 feet, and a minimum distance of at least l 0 times their depth, away from the levee toe. The pond appeared to satisfy the 20 feet horizontal criteria but may not satisfy the l 0 times depth criteria. Study and analysis should be conducted to check the stability and seepage gradient of this area. At another location, the waterside toe has been undercut by a pedestrian footpath for approximately I 00 feet. A small slump was observed on the waterside slope at another location. These locations should either be repaired or monitored for movement.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

5.1.3.2.5 Item 10, Animal Control. This component received a minimally acceptable rating because numerous rodent holes were observed in the levee. The sponsor indicated that they maintain an active animal control program which includes flagging active rodent holes, baiting rodents, and grouting bunows. However, numerous un-flagged, un-grouted, active rodent holes were still observed on the levee slopes during the levee inspection, indicating a more active animal control program is required (see Photo No. 16).

5.1.3.3. Floodwalls. The short floodwall sections at the El Camino Avenue bridge abutment are rated Acceptable.

5.1.3.4. Interior Drainage System.

5.1.3.5. Pump Stations. There are no federally authorized pump stations in segment AR2B.

5.1.3.6. Flood Damage Reduction Channels. Inspection of FDR channels were not included in the current scope of work and no inspections of the FOR channels were conducted.

5.1.4. Segment AR03- Right Bank American River. A rating summary of the features and components is provided in Table 19. Features and components that received Minimally Acceptable or Unacceptable ratings are discuss in the sections following the table. Refer to Appendix C for more detailed information of the AR03 Segment.

TABLE 19-
AR03 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION SYSTEM INSPECTION RATING SUMMARY A=Acceptable M=Minimally Acceptable U=Unacceptable N/A=Not Applicable Feature Component Rating
Item 1, Operations and Maintenance Manuals M
General Items Item 2, Emergency Supplies and Equipment A Item 3, Flood Preparedness and Training A
Item I, Unwanted Vegetation Growth u
Levee Embankments
Item 2, Sod Cover A
Item 3, Encroachments u
Item 4, Closure Structures A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Item 5, Slope Stability A
Item 6, Erosion I Bank Caving A
Item 7, Settlement A
Item 9, Cracking A
Item 10, Animal Control M
Item 11, Culverts I Discharge Pipes NA
Item 12, Riprap Revetments & Bank Protection NA
Item 13, Revetments other than Riprap NA
Item 14, Underseepage Relief Wells I Toe Drainage NA
Systems
Item 15, Seepage A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

5.1.4.1. General Items.

5.1.4.1.1. Item 1, Operations and Maintenance Manuals. This component received a minimally acceptable rating because the O&M Manual does not include all modifications to the project since originally constructed, such as installation of cutoff walls and construction of pump stations. Until such time that the O&M Manual is completely revised, any alteration or modification must be documented in an addendum that includes as-built drawings and supporting data and information. Future revisions to the O&M Manual also need to incorporate current levee safety practices and requirements.

5.1.4.2. Levee Embankments.

5.1.4.2.1. Item l, Unwanted Vegetation Growth. This component received an unacceptable rating because unwanted vegetation was observed in the vegetation-free zone (see Photo Nos. 16, 17, and 18). During the inspection, grass on the lands ide slope was generally 6 to 12 inches tall, occasionally up to 18 inches tall. The landside slope was generally free of brush and large trees with the exception of a short stretch near the Cal Expo. Trees and brush were encountered within 15 feet of the lands ide toe in several locations near Cal Expo. At one location, two tree stumps of cut trees, up to about 56 inches in diameter were observed near the waterside toe.

5.1.4.2.2. Item 3, Encroachments. This component received an unacceptable rating mainly because there are several locations where fence lines encroach upon the landside slope and toe (see Photo No. 19). Many facilities were built on, through and adjacent to the levee, including buried utilities, utility poles, and fences. Many are not permitted encroachments.

Debris, including yard clippings, furniture, appliances, fallen trees and tree limbs, and other miscellaneous items were present on the landside and waterside slopes during the inspection.

American River Flood Control District (ARFCD) has a program for collecting and disposing of debris. During a site visit to inspect floodwalls on ARO 1, ARFCD personnel were observed removing debris that was present earlier when the levee embankments were inspected.

Project limits and adjacent property lines were not provided prior to inspection. It is likely that most features rated as "encroachments" were built within the property owners' legal real estate boundaries, while others may have been built beyond the legal property boundaries. Individual encroachments were not checked to verify whether they were part of the original project or were

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
subsequently permitted. Whether permitted or not, encroachments, particularly fences, constructed in such a way as to block inspection of the landside toe may inhibit identification of seepage problems and pose an impediment to flood-fighting activities. 5 .1.4.2.3. Item 10, Animal Control. This component received a minimally acceptable rating mainly because rodent holes were observed on the levee slopes at the time of inspection.

Numerous rodent holes were observed along both the landside and waterside levee slopes. Sizes ranged from 3 inches in diameter up to 8 inches in diameter. The sponsor indicated that they maintain an active animal control program which includes flagging active rodent holes, baiting rodents, and grouting burrows. The animal control program appeared active, with numerous yellow flags marking rodent holes for filling and a number of rodent holes already grouted.

However, numerous un-flagged active rodent holes were observed on the levee slopes, indicating a more active animal control program is required (see Photo No. 20 and 21).

5.1.4.3. Floodwalls. There are no floodwalls in segment AR03.

5.1.4.4 Interior Drainage System.

5.1.4.5. Pump Stations. There are no federally authorized pump stations in segment AR03.

5.1.4.6. Flood Damage Reduction Channels. Inspection of FDR channels were not included in the current scope of work and no inspections of the FDR channels were conducted.

5.1.5. Segment AR3B (MAlO and MAll)- Right Bank American River. A rating summary of the features and components is provided in Table 20. Features and components that received Minimally Acceptable or Unacceptable ratings are discuss in the sections following the table.

Refer to Appendix C for more detailed information on Segment AR3B (MAlO and MAll).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
.' '
TABLE 20-
SEGMENT AR3B (MAlO AND MAll)

FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION SYSTEM INSPECTION RATING SUMMARY A=Acceptable M=Minimally Acceptable U=U nacceptable N/ A=Not Applicable Feature Component Rating
Item 1, Operations and Maintenance Manuals M
General Items Item 2, Emergency Supplies and Equipment A Item 3, Flood Preparedness and Training A
Item 1, Unwanted Vegetation Growth u
Item 2, Sod Cover A
Item 3, Encroachments u
Item 4, Closure Structures NA
Item 5, Slope Stability A
Item 6, Erosion I Bank Caving A
Item 7, Settlement A
Levee Embankments Item 8, Depressions I Rutting A
(continued) Item 9, Cracking A
Item 10, Animal Control M
Item 11, Culverts I Discharge Pipes u
Item 12, Riprap Revetments & Bank Protection NA
Item 13, Revetments other than Riprap NA
Item 14, Underseepage Relief Wells I Toe Drainage NA
Systems
Item 15, Seepage A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
·' .

TABLE 20-
SEGMENT AR3B (MAlO AND MAll)

FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION SYSTEM INSPECTION RATING SUMMARY A= Acceptable M=Minimally Acceptable U=Unacceptable N/A=Not Applicable Feature Component Rating
Item 1, Pump Stations Operating, Maintenance, A
Training, & Inspection Records
Item 2, Pump Station Operations and Maintenance A
Equipment Manuals
Item 3, Safety Compliance A
Item 4, Communications A
Item 5, Plant Building A
Pump Stations
Item 6, Fencing and Gates A
Item 7, Pumps A
Item 8, Motors, Engines, Fans, Gear Reducers, Back A
Stop Devices, etc.

Item 9, Sumps I Wet well A
Item 10, Mechanical Operating Trash Rakes A
Item 11, Non-Mechanical Trash Racks A

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
TABLE 20-
SEGMENT AR3B (MAlO AND MAll)

FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION SYSTEM INSPECTION RATING SUMMARY A=Acceptable M=Minimally Acceptable U=U nacceptable N/A=Not Applicable Feature Component Rating
Item 12, Fuel System for Pump Engines A
Item 13, Power Source M
Item 14, Electrical Systems A
Item 15, Megger Testing on Pump Motors and M
Critical Power Cables
Pump Stations
Item 16, Enclosures, Panels, Conduits, and Ducts A
(continued) Item 17, Intake and Discharge Pipelines A
Item 18, Sluice I Slide Gates A
Item 19, Flap Gates I Flap Valves I Pinch Valves A
Item 20, Cranes A
Item 21 , Other Metallic Items A

5.1.5.1. General Items.

5.1.5.1.1. Item l, Operations and Maintenance Manuals. This component received a minimally acceptable rating because the O&M Manuals do not include all modifications to the project since originally constructed, such as installation of cutoff walls and construction of pump stations.

Until such time that the O&M Manual is completely revised, any alteration or modification must be documented in an addendum that includes as-bui It drawings and supporting data and information. Future revisions to the O&M Manuals also need to incorporate current levee safety practices and requirements.

5.1.5.2. Levee Embankments.

5.1 .5.2. 1. Item 1, Unwanted Vegetation Growth. This component received an unacceptable rating mainly because large trees and brush are growing on the landside and waterside slopes and

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
at and within 15 feet beyond the landside and waterside toes. The landside slope was generally free of trees. Heavy brush was observed on the lands ide slope in some area. From the Howe A venue Bridge to about 2.5 levee miles east, many trees was observed on the landside within 15 feet of the levee toe (see Photo No. 24). These trees range in size up to about 36 inches in diameter. The waterside slope was generally free of large trees and excess vegetation, except at two locations where large trees approximately 42-inch in diameter were observed. In many instances, large trees, between about 8 and 60 inches in diameter were observed growing below the waterside toe within 15 feet of the levee toe (see Photo No. 25). Most of these trees ranged in size from 12 to 30 inches in diameter.

5.1.5.2.2. Item 3, Encroachments. This component received an unacceptable rating because of the presence of encroachments at the eastern extent of the levee segment (near McClaren Drive and northeast of Arden Way) which are likely to inhibit operations and maintenance of the levee and potentially negatively impact the integrity of the levee (see Photo Nos. 26 and 27). In this area, the levee is located on private property in a residential neighborhood where features such as homes, roads, driveways, and lawns were observed on and around the levee on both the landside and waterside. Access is controlled by the individual property owners and the ability to inspect, maintain and/or floodfight is hampered by the controlled access. The sponsor indicated that they had not inspected this area for a number of years prior to this inspection. It is not known whether the levee crest in this area is still built up to the intended elevation for its entire length. During the levee inspection, the inspection team was unable to precisely identify the location of the end of levee (LM 0.0 of MA 11) in this area.

Outside of the above area (west or south of Arden Way), many facilities, including buried utilities, utility poles, buildings, and fences, were observed on, through and adjacent to the levee (see Photo No. 28).

5.1.5.2.3. Item 10, Animal Control. This component received a minimally acceptable rating because numerous un-flagged, un-grouted, active rodent holes were observed on the levee slopes. Rodent holes ranging in size from about 2 inches to 8 inches were observed on both the landside and waterside slopes. The sponsor indicated that they maintain an active animal control program which includes flagging active rodent holes, baiting rodents, and grouting burrows. The animal control program appeared active based on the presence of yellow marker flags, filled holes, and some excess grout at certain locations. However, numerous un-flagged active rodent

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
holes, and some excess grout at certain locations. However, numerous un-flagged active rodent holes were observed on the levee slopes, indicating a more active animal control program is required (see Photo No. 30).

5.1.5.2.4. Item 11, Culvert/Discharge Pipes. The condition ofthe discharge pipes have not been verified using television camera video recordings or visual inspection methods within the past five years and an Unacceptable rating was assigned.

5.1.5.3. Flood walls. There are no flood walls in levee segment AR3B (MA 10 and MA 11 ).

5.1.5.4. Interior Drainage System.

5.1.5.5. Pump Stations.

5.1.5.5.1. Item 13, Power Source. This component received a minimally acceptable rating because Pump Station DOS does not have a dedicated standby generator.

5.1.5.5.2. Item 15, Megger Testing on Pump Motors and Ctitical Power Cables. This component received a minimally acceptable rating because the most current Megger tests are more than one year old for equipment at Pump Stations DOS and D43.

5.1.5.6. Flood Damage Reduction Channels. Inspection of FDR channels were not included in the current scope of work and no inspections of the FDR channels were conducted.

5.2. Design Criteria Review. The design criteria review compares the original design criteria against current design criteria.

The levees in the subject system were built or upgraded by USACE in the 50s' per the standards at that time. No original design criteria of AROl , AR2B, and AR03 were found in the system documents provided. The original design criteria of MAlO and MAll were presented in a

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
document called "Design Memorandum No. I, American River Project, California, American River Levee General Design" prepared by USACE in 1956 (PDF filename : American River Levee General Design M.pdf). Subsequent design analyses were conducted to evaluate the problem areas or upgrade areas. Design criteria found in the system documents that were provided are described below. Following these descriptions, a summary is presented in Table

21. • The following design criteria were used in the design of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project:

According to the Standard Operation and Maintenance Manual of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, levees of the project were constructed generally with a crown width of20 feet, with landside slopes of2H:lV and riverside slopes of3H:l V.

The American River right (north) bank levee (AR03) of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project was designed to have a crown width of 20 feet, a variable riverside slope (below the flood plane of 3.0H: 1 V and above the flood plane of 2.0H: IV) and a landside slope of 2.0H: 1 V. It was gravel surfaced for patrol purposes.

The levees of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project were designed to provide a freeboard of at least 3 feet above the adopted flood plane. In the American River the project design flood was 180,000 cfs; flow in Natomas Canal from American River to Arcade Creek 16,000 cfs; flow in Natomas Canal from Arcade Creek to Magpie Creek pumping station 16,300 cfs; flow in Natomas canal from Magpie Creek to Linda Creek 16,000 cfs; flow in Arcade Creek above mouth 3,300 cfs; flow in Linda Creek above mouth 15,000 cfs; flow in Magpie Creek to Linda Creek diversion channel 250 cfs Along the right bank of the American River, the grade of the adopted flood plane varies from Elevation 41.8 at the upstream end to Elevation 35.3 at its junction with the Natomas Canal. Along the Natomas Canal the grade of the adopted flood plane v~ries from Elevation 35.3 at the American River to Elevation 39.6 at its junction with Linda Creek. Along Arcade Creek the grade of the adopted flood plane varies from Elevation

37.3 at its junction with the Natomas Canal to Elevation 39.2 at its upper end. For Linda Creek the grade of the adopted flood plane is at Elevation 40.0. All Elevations are referred to U.S. Corps of Engineers datum.
• The following design criteria were used in the design of the American River Levee Project:

One freeboard criteria for the right bank of the American River was that the right bank levee should provide substantially the same degree of protection as was provided by the project left bank levee. It was computed that the lowest point on the left bank levee with

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
the right bank levee directly across the river assumed to have the same freeboard would pass a flow of 152,000 cfs with a 3-foot freeboard. It was found that in the reach between the end of the existing right bank project levee (AR03) and the H Street Bridge, the new right bank levee with a 5-foot freeboard above the 115,000 cfs flow would require a higher levee than the 152,000 cfs flow with a 3-foot freeboard. In the reach upstream from the H Street Bridge it was found that the right bank levee with a 3-foot freeboard over a flow of 152,000 cfs would provide a higher levee than a 5-foot freeboard over the 115,000 cfs flow. The adopted levee grade line at any point on the right bank levee is the higher of these two criteria.

The hydraulic design of the flood plane is based on a water surface elevation of 35 .3 feet (Corps of Engineers Datum) on the American River at its confluence with Natomas Canal, which corresponds to a flood plane made up of a combination of moderate flood flows from Natomas Canal totaling 16,000 cfs (estimated frequency once in 50 years); the maximum probable flow in the American River corresponding to a controlled flow of 115,000 cfs; and maximum flows in the Sacramento River with the Sacramento Weir wide open so that I Street stage will be about elevation 33 feet (Corps of Engineers Datum).

The hydraulic computations were based on Manning's formula for open channel flow, using Method No. 1 from OCE Manual, Part CXIY, Chapter 9, Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis, Computations of Back-water Curves in River Channels. In order to determine more realistic values for the coefficient of friction "n", the November 1950 flood plane was computed and checked against the actual recorded flood levels for two reaches of the river. The first reach was from Natomas Canal to the end of the existing right bank project levee where the estimated 174,000 cfs flow was confined between existing right bank and left bank levees. The second reach was from the H Street Bridge upstream about 1-112 miles where the estimated channel flow was 106,000 cfs The deviation of computed and actual flood levels was in general within 0.2 foot, with a maximum deviation of 0.8 foot at two locations.

Main channel velocities for the project design flow of 115,000 cfs vary from 3.8 feet per second to 15 .9 feet per second (at the extreme upper end of the project). Overbank velocities vary from 1 foot per second to 6 feet per second.

An all-weather patrol road was provided on the levee crown for inspection, maintenance, and flood fighting purposes. The patrol road surfacing was designed to consist of 4 inches of crushed mineral aggregate, 12 feet in width.

Due to the natTowing of the flood channel at the H Street Bridge, it was considered necessary to provide bank protection to the right bank of the river from a point 300 feet

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
upstream to a point 500 feet downstream from the bridge. Bank protection below the low water line was designed to be 18 inches in thickness. It was designed to be placed on a 3H: l V slope and end in a toe trench at the bottom of the river to prevent undermining.

Above low water, a 6-inch filter blanket and a 12-inch thickness of cobbles were designed to be placed on the 3H: l V prepared slope.

Two pumping plants were included in the project for intercepted interior drainage.

Pumping Plant No. l was/is located on the landside of the then new levee near its intersection with the then existing north levee on the State Fairgrounds (LM 3.7 of MAlO, see page B-4), and was designed to have a capacity of about 800 cfs. Pumping Plant No.2 was/is located just east ofthe Del Paso Rock Company (LM 3.5 ofMAll, see page 8-4), and was designed to have a capacity of about 300 cfs. The design of the pumping plants included a collecting basin, pump sump, pump house, discharge pipes passing through the levee at the flood plane or reinforced concrete culverts passing through the base of the levee, and reinforced concrete outlet works. The discharge pipes or culverts were designed to be provided with automatic drainage gates (flap gates) on the discharge end. Siphons, if used, were designed to be provided with air release valves at the apex of the pipes. Intercepting ditches were designed to be provided to bring flows from existing channels and sloughs to the collecting sumps at the pumping plants.

For purposes of the Operation and Maintenance Manual for the American River Flood Control Project, the term "flood" or "high water period" for the American River shall refer to flows when the water surface in the river reaches or exceeds the reading of 40.0 feet on the U.S. Geological Survey and State Department of Water Resources gage located on the H Street Bridge over the American R.iver. Zero of the H Street gage is set on 0.00 U.S.E.D. datum and minus 3.07 feet U.S. Geological Survey datum (NGVD 1929).
• American River Common Features:

The current hydraulic design standard for the American River common features is a 200- year level of flood protection, based both on direction from Congress and the State of California standard for flood protection for urban areas in the Sacramento River Flood Control Project. The direction from Congress established a maximum design flood in the American River of 160,000 cfs with a minimum 3 feet of freeboard above this flood to levee crests.

The Sacramento Corps of Engineers August 2000 report for the "American River Watershed, Implementation ofWRDA 99 Common Features, Lower American River Sites" recommended that the embankment fill shall have minimum of 30 percent fines

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
and a Liquid Limit of less than 45 and a Plasticity Index between 7 and 25. Maximum particle size shall be two inches.
• American River Watershed WRDA 99 Common Features- Right Bank Levee Near Jacob Lane:

USACE conducted a study in 2000 to determine if a cutoff wall, or any other repairs, was required for the levee to be stable at a water surface of 160,000 cfs water surface plus 1.5 feet. At the time the levee crown width varied from 10 to 20 feet with an average of 15 feet. The levee side slopes ranged from 3H: 1 V to 4.7H: 1 Von the waterside and from 2H: 1 V to 4H: IV on the landside. The design water surface used in the analyses corresponds to a flow of 160,000 cfs plus an additional 1.5 feet. Flood durations were provided by Hydraulic Design Section and were as follows: 2-day duration for 160,000 cfs, 7-day duration for 115,000 cfs, and 14-day duration for 70,000 cfs. A minimum factor of safety of 2.8 against piping, which corresponds to an exit gradient and upward gradient of0.3, was used in the evaluation since the levee was considered a "new" levee (ETL 1110-2-555). A minimum factor of safety of 1.4 against sliding was used in the evaluation (EM 1110-2-1913). Results of the seepage analysis indicated a factor of safety against piping of 1. 7 for a water surface of 160,000 cfs plus 1.5 feet, which is lower than the recommended value of2.8. Therefore, repairs were recommended.

The original geotechnical evaluation was documented in the geotechnical report titled "American River Watershed, Implementation ofWRDA 99 Common Features, Lower American River Sites," dated August 2000. The original evaluation concluded that remedial repairs were required to control excessive exit gradients at the levee toe . The repairs included a 10-foot wide seepage berm and widening the levee crest to 20-foot.

Recommendations were documented in memorandum dated May 8, 2001, Subject:

Design Recommendations for Right Bank near Jacob Lane.

The following design criteria were used:

Maximum allowable exit gradient=0.30 per USACE's ETL 1110-2-555 Minimum slope stability factor of safety=1.4 per USACE's EM 1110-2-1913 Minimum crest width=20 feet per Title 23 of the State Code of Regulations Reevaluation of the American River right bank levee near Jacob Lane was conducted by the soil design section of the USACE Sacramento District, and the results were presented in a report dated November 200 l. The reevaluation was performed for two reasons: ( 1) the design water surface was lowered approximately 1.5 feet based on revised hydraulic modeling, and (2) additional investigations had concluded that the permeability of the foundation cobble layer was lower than originally estimated. The following design criteria were used in the reevaluation:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
o Design water surface - Corresponded to a flow of 160,000 cfs plus an additional 1.5 feet (This was the design water surface adopted for implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features.)
o Seepage analyses - Maximum allowable gradient of 0.30 based on a recommended minimum factor of safety against piping of2.8 per ETL 1110-2-555. o Slope stability- Factor of safety of 1.4 for the long term steady state condition per EM 1110-2-1913.

The reevaluation concluded that the levee should perform adequately for floodwaters at the design water surface corresponding to a flow of 160,000 cfs plus 1.5 feet. Therefore, the seepage berm recommended in the original evaluation was not required. The recommendation to widen the levee crest to 20 feet remains unchanged. A wider crest is needed for inspection and flood fighting activities. Widening is also required to bring the levee up to the minimum cross section specified in Title 23 of the State Code of Regulations. A 15-foot wide vegetation free zone should be provided from the waterside toe in accordance to EM Ill 0-2-301.
• Right (north) bank American River slurry walls:

Based on the draft Technical Review Memorandum dated December 2007 prepared by URS, the following criteria were used in the design of the right (north) bank American River slurry walls:
o Right bank levees were analyzed for through and under-seepage using a water level corresponding to river flow of 150,000 cfs in addition to a water level 1.5 feet above the water level of a flow at 160,000 cfs.
o Target design values for exit gradients ranged from 0.3 to 0.35. Where exit gradients exceeded target design values, these sections were identified as requiring a slun-y cutoff wall to reduce exit gradients below target design values. o For the sections where a cutoff wall was deemed necessary, the wall was designed for a water level corresponding to a river flow of200,000 cfs. o Cutoff wall depth was generally dictated by a requirement to toe the walls about 5 feet into an impermeable layer below a deep gravel and cobble layer.

It was stated in the December 2007 draft memorandum that the design criteria used in the design of the left (south) bank American River slurry walls were anticipated to be similar, if not identical, to those for the right (north) bank slurry cutoff walls, except between RM

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

0.0 and 2.7 of the left (south) levee where the deep gravel and cobble layer extended to depths greater than 80 feet below the levee crest. The 2007 draft report indicated that a 78-foot slurry wall depth was shown in the construction drawings, and the URS team assumed that the "groundwater monitoring coupled with later jet grouting if needed option" was used.
• American River Watershed WRDA 99 Common Features- Right Bank Levee Near Howe A venue (see page B-6):

The proposed work involved raising the levee by an average of one foot to provide a minimum 3 feet of freeboard above the 160,000 cfs water surface. The existing side slopes ranged from 2.3H: 1 V to 4H: 1 Von the waterside and from 2H: 1 V to 3H: 1 Von the landside. A 60-foot deep soi !-cement-bentonite cutoff wall was installed through the center of levee in the summer of 2000 to prevent piping of levee and foundation materials during high water events. The USACE recommended geometry of the raised levee included a minimum 20-foot crown width, 2H to IV landside slope, and 3H to 1 V waterside slope.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
• American River Watershed WRDA 99 Common Features- Right Bank Levee Near NEMDC (see page B-6):

The levee crown width varied from 20 to 25 feet, and the levee side slopes ranged from

2.1 H: 1 V to 3H: 1 Von the waterside and from l.8H: 1 V to 2.3H: 1 Von the landside. At that time, for an 800-foot stretch of levee between 500 and 1300 feet upstream of State Highway 160, portions of the landside slope were very steep with slopes ranging from

1.5H: IV to l.8H: 1 V. The 2000 USACE report concluded that additional borings were required to assess whether this levee is stable at a water surface of 160,000 cfs plus 1.5 feet, and that the very steep landside slope, from about 500 feet upstream to 1300 feet upstream of State Highway 160, be reshaped to provide a minimum 2H: 1 V slope for maintenance and to satisfy USACE design guidance which requires a minimum slope of 2H:1V.

Supplemental subsurface exploration and analyses were conducted by the USACE Sacramento District in 2001. Seepage analyses were conducted based on a minimum factor of safety against piping of2.8. Slope stability analyses were conducted based on a minimum factor of safety against sliding for the long term case of 1.4 per EM 11 I 0-2- 1913. The design water surface was based on water flow of 160,000 cfs plus 1.5 feet.

Rapid drawdown analyses were conducted based on minimum factor of safety between

1.0 and I .2 depending on the severity of drawdown. The 200 l report recommended the following:
o A landside stability berm with internal drain be constructed along the levee toe. The recommended berm should be approximately 6.5 feet high and I 0 feet wide. The internal drain should consist of drain rock encapsulated in filter fabric. o The lands ide levee slope should be flattened to a minimum 2H: 1 V in areas where the slope is steeper than this.
o The waterside slope should be reshaped and flatten to a minimum 3H: l V. o The waterside levee slope downstream of Del Paso Blvd be excavated and rebuilt.

It is indicated in the report that, with the recommended repairs implemented, the levee will be stable for a water surface up to 200,000 cfs
• Erosion Design Standards:

The requirement for protection of the levee waterside slopes or crest are based on whether or not erosion from migration, shifting or scouring, velocities or shear stresses at the design flow, or wind or boat waves might extend into the levee template or damage

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
the levee. No studies or reports were provided that consider these issues or define design criteria for the levees in System 1. However, wind wave erosion potential is being evaluated in the American River Common Features General Reevaluation Report (ARCF GRR) and has also been considered on the NEMDC and NEMDC west levee as part of SAFCA design studies for the Natomas Levee Improvement Project.

One issue that is not well resolved is the adequacy of the historical bank protection works. Many of the earlier bank revetments were constructed without toe protection and often the rock or cobble dimensions appear undersized relative to current practices. Such revetments are potentially susceptible to failure during large floods. At this time, there is not an adopted revetment design for the American River that can be used to evaluate the older revetments. Any assessments would be on a site-by-site basis.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(
TABLE 21- DESIGN CRITERIA
Design 1956 USACE Design 1987 Wahler 2000 USACE 2001 USACE 2001 USACE Geotech. 2002 URS 2003 URS Levee 2008 CESPK 2000 USACE Document Memo. Report Geotecb. Supp. Geotech. Report Jet Grout Strength. Report Current Practice Current Design Name Report Report Report Criteria
PDF File American River Levee Project AR Ceo. Report - R2 - Memorandum for Final Jet r2_Design Analysis Sacramento EM 1110-2-1913 Name General Design M.pdf COE-251K, Watershed WRDA99 PM-C (R. Nishio).pdf Grout Report 100% District Ceo tech Design and Wahler I mplementatio Common Alternative submittal 03-26- SOP#3 USACE Construction of Associates.pd n ofWRDA 99 features.pdf s OJ. pdf SACR.~MENTO Levees. pdf f .pdf Evaluation DISTRICT
Report 09- GEOTECHNIC
II-02.pdf AL LEVEE
PRACTICE.pdf
Levee MAIO, MAll ARO!, AR03, MAlO, AR03 near MAll near Jacob Lane AR03, AR03, MAIO.

AR2B, MAll (3 sites) NEMDC MAIO, MAll
AR03, MAll
MAIO,
MAll
Survey Surveys were tied in to the California State
and State Coordinate System and Coord. Sys. 1983
Datum elevations were to Corps of (CCS83-I 991.35)
Engineers Datum (USED) and NGVD 29
Design 1 I 5.000 cfs with 5' 160,000 cfs 160,000 cfs plus 160,000 cfs plus 1.5': FEMA Evaluation !60.000 Use risk-based Flow and freeboard; or 152,000 cfs with 3' of 1.5'. recommended recommended 160,000 water level cfs plus I .5'; analysis instead of Free- with 3' freeboard freeboard near design flow cfs plus 1.5' 145,000 cfs: remediation 200,000 freeboard; use board Howe Ave., 200.000 cfs evaluation cfs plus 2'; FEMA deterministic analysis 160,000 cfs water level 145,000 cfs to set final levee
plus 1.5' near 160.00 cfs grade
NEMDC based plus I .5':
on 1986 flood: remediation
160,000 cfs water level
plus 1.5' near 200,000 cfs
Jacob Lane; plus 2'
recommended
design flow of
200,000 cfs
Flood 35.3' USED at NEMDC, 33'
Plane USED at"!" Street -
Int. 19 sq. miles. 5-year rainfall
Drainage of 0.55" per hour, 630 acreHyd. feet with a momentary peak flow of 2,900 cfs
Crown Min. 20' Min. 20' Min. 20' per Title 23 of Min. 20' for main 10' to 12'; at least Width the State Code of levee and 12 · for 10'
Regulations minor levee

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
TABLE 21- DESIGN CRITERIA (continued)
Design 1956 USACE Design 1987 Wahler 2000 USACE 2001 USACE 2001 USACE Geotech. 2002 URS 2003 URS Levee 2008 CESPK 2000 USACE Document Memo. Report Geotech. Supp. Geotech. Report Jet Grout Strength. Report Current Practice Current Design Name Report Report Report Criteria
Land-side 2H to IV 2H to IV 3H:I V: 2H:IV 2H: IV or !latter:

Slope may be used for 2H: IV for ease of
rehab. construction: 3H: IV
for maintenance;
5 H: IV for seepage in
sand levee
Waterside 3H to IV 3Hto IV 3H IV 2H : IV or llauer:

Slope 2H: IV for ease of
construction: .lH: IV
for maintenance
Patrol 4'" of crushed mineral
Road aggregate 12 ' in widt.h
Bank Per Ci vil Works Bulletin No.

Protection 52- 15
Slope Landside Spencer's Spencer's Met hod: Spencer's Method: min. Min. F.S of 1.40 Min. F.S. per EM Min. F.S. of 1.4 for Stability only, specific Method; min. min. F.S. 1.4 for F.S. of I .4 for long-tenn 111 0-2-1 9 13: 1.4 loog-tenn. 1.3 for Analysis case of a F.S. of 1.4 per long-term and per EM 1110-2-1913 for long-tenn, 1.3 end of construction. tlood EM 1110-2- between 1.0 and 1.2 for end of and 1.0 to 1.2 for condition 191 3 for rapid drawdown construction, 1 .0 rapid draw-down with 3' of per EM 1110-2- to I .2 for rapid
freeboard, 1913 draw-down;
Bishop's seismic per ER
Modi tied 1110-2-IR06
Method, min.

F.S. of 1.4 per
EM 1110-2-
1913
Piping Min. F.S. of Min. F.S. of2.8 Min. F.S. of 2.8: max. Max. exit Max. exit gradient of Threshold exit Drainage ditch: max.

2.8 gradient of 0.30 gradient of 03 gradient of0.5: exit gradient of 0.5 at~ (corresponds to 0.3 0.3 to 0.5 at lands ide toe and 0.8 upward critica l locations at !50': Case I. max.
gradient of 0.3) exit gradient of0.5;
per ETL 1110- blanket: provide
2-555 near blanket if upward
NEMDC and gradient over O.R
Jacob Lane
Veg. Free 15' wide at waterside toe
Zone per EM 1110-2-301
Easement Min. 20' landside; Min. 15'
water-side

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
The current USACE standard for calculating design water surface profiles is based on hydrologic and hydraulic risk and uncertainty (EM 1110-2-1619) for water levels with a deterministic wind wave water level component incorporated in setting the levee crest elevation (EC 1110-2-6067).

Such studies are underway as part of the American River Common Features General Reevaluation Report (ARCF GRR) that is being prepared by the USACE, Sacramento District but were not provided for review.

A number of recent hydraulic studies provide useful information. A UNET hydraulic model, developed by MBK Engineers from the USACE Sacramento River comprehensive model (USACE 2002), was used to prepare design water surface profiles for the Natomas Levee Improvement Project (MBK Engineers 2008). While this report did not address Arcade Creek, it provided 100- and 200-year water surface design profiles for the lower NEMDC (downstream of Pump Station D-15). Their report showed that the 1 00-year profile along the lower NEMDC is at about the same elevations as the 1957 design plane. The 200-year profile, based on existing geometry and the design standards described above, was about 1.5 feet higher than the 100-year and 1957 design plane profile in the lower part of the NEMDC and provided design water surface elevations of about 34.0 feet NGVD 29 at the mouth of the NEMDC and 36.0 feet NGVD 29 at the mouth of Arcade Creek. However, the hydraulic analyses discussed above do not meet the current USACE standard for calculating design water surface profiles, which is based on hydrologic and hydraulic risk and uncertainty (EM 1110-2-1619) for water levels with a deterministic wind wave water level component incorporated in setting the levee elevation (EC 1110-2-6067). Such studies are underway as part of the American River Common Features General Reevaluation Report (ARCFGRR) that is being prepared by the USACE, Sacramento District.

According to the Standard Operation and Maintenance Manual (revised) for the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, dated May 1955, the levees were constructed generally with a crown width of 20 feet, with landside slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2.0H: 1 V) and riverside slopes of3.0H: 1 V. According to the Operation and Maintenance Manual for the American River Flood Control Project, dated November 1959, the levees were built with riverside slope of

3.0H: 1 V, crown width of20 feet, and landside slope of2.0H: l V. These are in general agreement with the current standard levee geometry requirements (Sacramento District Geotech SOP #3, dated 11 April2008) where it specifies that the minimum levee section should have a

3.0H: 1 V waterside slope, a minimum 20 feet wide crown for main line levees, major tributary levees, and bypass levees, a minimum 12 feet wide crown for minor tributary levees, a 3.0H: 1 V landside slope, existing levees with lands ide slopes as steep as 2.0H: 1 V may be used in rehabilitation projects if lands ide slope performance has been good.

According to Sacramento District Geotech SOP #3 ( 11 April 2008), underseepage cutoff walls should be designed to tie into an impervious layer and form a fu!Vcomplete cutoff. Slurry cutoff

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
walls between 60 and 72 feet deep were installed in the right (north) bank American River levees between approximately River Miles 3.15 and 11.3. These cutoff walls generally tie into an impervious layer to form a fulVcomplete cutoff, except that they contain gaps because there were existing underground utilities in the levee, highway and bridge crossings, overhead restrictions, and other site constraints that interfered with the installation of slurry cutoff wall. Some of the gaps were closed using jet grouting, but some are still open pending completion of analysis, review and approval, and availability of funding.

Insufficient data is available to conduct detailed design criteria review to check if the old designs meet the current design criteria. Evaluations and analyses are being conducted by URS for the Division of Flood Management of Department of Water Resources under the Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations contract. Their evaluations are being conducted based on currently accepted geotechnical criteria as specified by DWR and USACE.

From the design criteria review, it was concluded that the recent evaluations and studies meet current design standards. Some sections of levee are continuing to be evaluated. Flood heights continue to be evaluated for differing scenarios. As constructed and improved, the levee embankments appear to meet current minimum design criteria with the exception of the following:
• Vegetation free zone
• 15 to 20 feet easements beyond toe
• Cohesive materials for levee embankments
No simple top of levee elevation profile or table was found to compare existing crest elevations with design flood planes. The inspection team concludes that the embankments, floodwalls and pump station as designed have the ability to function as authorized based on the design criteria review. Conclusions regarding interior drainage are withheld until condition surveys are conducted on discharge pipes that pass through the levee below the flood plan elevation.

5.3. Levee Safety Issues. Multiple upgrades have occurTed during the last two decades, raising levee crest elevations and installing slurry cutoff walls. No major levee safety issues requiring immediate attention were identified. Of the remaining potential deficiencies, encroachments and trees both on the levee embankment or near the embankment toe are the most serious levee safety issues. The discharge pipes need to be inspected.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
The encroachments that are potential safety issues are primarily on private properties. Common undesirable features on private properties include structures that may block flood fight efforts, large trees and stumps, restricted access to the toe of the levee, and swimming pools. Resolving these issues on private properties is beyond the scope of the Periodic Inspection.

Mature trees, commonly 12-inches in diameter and larger remain within levee embankments and within 15 feet of the levee toe. In general small trees are noticeably absent, indicating ongoing effects by the levee district to prevent additional trees from establishing themselves on the levee.

The levee district has not been allowed to remove the larger trees. Public policies regarding trees are in conflict with maintaining flood protection reliability.

Table 22 below summarizes the features that affect levee safety that were addressed in the Periodic Inspection. The private property issue is excluded. Each of the features affecting levee safety is then discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. Except for the tree issue, the deficiencies are mostly routine maintenance issues that are being addressed by the levee district.

Table 22 - Levee Safety Issues
Rated Item Remarks Repair/Evaluation
Recommendations
Unwanted Mature trees within levee Remove trees and roots.

Vegetation embankments and within 15 feet of
levee toes.

Culverts/Drainage Condition of pipes is not known. Visually inspect or TV survey Structures culverts.

Sod Cover Little sod cover on landside slope Re-establish sod cover. adjacent to railroad alignment in
Segment AR2B.

Unauthorized Debris on levee slopes and at levee Continue debris removal program.

Encroachments toe. District has program to remove
debris. Some fences may be
unauthorized.

Slope Stability Excavated pond beyond AR2B levee Check depth of pond. Check if toe. previously evaluated. Perform
additional evaluation if needed.

Erosion Bank erosion occurring beneath Assess bank erosion. Re-armor as Norwood A venue bridge. necessary.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
• Unwanted vegetation was observed within the levee vegetation-free zone at numerous locations:

Unwanted vegetation, including brush, weeds, and trees over 2 inches in diameter, was observed within the levee vegetation-free zone at numerous locations. Per ETL 1110-2- 571 (1 0 April2009) the vegetation-free zone is a three-dimensional corridor surrounding all levees, floodwalls, embankment dams, and critical appurtenant structures, and it applies to all vegetation except grass. The minimum height of the corridor should be 8 feet, measured vertically from any point on the ground. The minimum width of the corridor should be the width of the levee, flood wall, or embankment dam, including all critical appurtenant structures, plus 15 feet on each side, measured from the outer edge of the outermost critical structure. The 15-foot minimum width requirement may be diminished with a formal variance. Other than by variance, the single exception to this 15-foot minimum requirement arises in the case of an existing project where the width of the existing real estate interest for the project is less than 15 feet. In such a case, the vegetation-free zone width should be the maximum attainable within the existing real estate interest. The primary purpose of the vegetation-free zone is to provide a reliable corridor of access to, and along, levees, floodwalls, embankment dams, and appurtenant structures. This corridor must be free of obstructions to assure adequate access by personnel and equipment for surveillance, inspection, maintenance, monitoring, and flood-fighting. The unwanted vegetation will also threaten the operation or integrity of the levees, floodwalls, and appurtenant structures because of potential piping and seepage due to root penetration, and structural damage resulting from a wind-driven tree overturning. Also, roots should not be allowed in the mandatory 3-foot root-free zone as definedinFigures 13, 14, 15, 17,and 19inETL 1110-2-571 (10April2009). The integrity of the foundation could be compromised if potential seepage paths were created by root penetration and/or root decay.
• Visual and/or television recorded inspections of culverts within last 5 years are not available:

The continuing eligibility requirements for the Corps' Rehabilitation and Inspection Program require that the conditions of pipes be verified using television camera video recording or visual inspection methods within the past five years, and the report for every pipe is available for review by the inspector.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
• Sod cover on levee slopes was missing or damaged at numerous locations:

Sod cover on levee slopes was missing or damaged at numerous locations. This may be the result of frequent foot traffic or lack of maintenance. The primary function of the sod cover should be to reliably protect against erosion. The sod cover should be maintained as necessary to ensure the health and vigor of the primary species providing erosion protection. Invasive or weed species should not be acceptable. Per ETL 1110-2-571 (l 0 April 2009) the species selected must be able to tolerate mowing to heights as low as 3 inches, as follows: at least once each year for inspection; and in anticipation of flood conditions and associated monitoring and flood-fighting activities. • Various unauthorized encroachments were observed in the easement areas:

Various unauthorized encroachments, such as trash, debris, structures, and obstructions, were observed in the easement areas. Easements are necessary for maintenance, inspection, and floodfight access. Per Sacramento District Geotech SOP #3 (ll April 2008) ofthe USACE
Sacramento District, a standard levee geometry should include a minimum 20-foot wide landside easement and a minimum 15-foot wide waterside easement. • Pond was observed ncar levee toe:

The excavation for the pond beyond the waterside toe of the AR2B levee may extend below a 1 OH: l V plane extending down from the levee toe, deeper than the perspective criteria contained in Sacramento District Geotech SOP #3 ( ll April2008). The pond excavation could reduce the stability of the levee and could increase seepage head beneath the levee, weakening the landside slope. The risk of boils and piping could also be increased.
• Minor erosion was observed at numerous locations:

Erosion was observed on the levee slopes at two locations in ARO 1 due to bank undercutting by stream flows. In other areas, minor erosion appeared to be caused by lack of sod cover due to frequent foot traffic. In other areas, minor erosion may be caused by lack of sod cover and/or concentrated surface runoff. Extensive erosion could lead to bank caving, which may threaten the integrity of the levee.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
.' .
• Land uses on private properties:

Land uses on private properties that could adversely affect levee integrity or reliability should be addressed. Potentially adverse land uses include:
o Structures that may block flood fight effo11s.
o Swimming pools and excavations that may increase seepage/piping risks. o Trees and stumps.
o Restricted access for inspection and flood fight.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
----
PART VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

6.1. Conclusion. The "American River Right Bank, NEMDC I California" system rating and conclusions regarding the performance of the levee system during the next flood event can be found in the LSO Approval Memorandum preceding the main text of this PI report. Part V of this report gives general descriptions of deficiencies and Appendix C presents guidelines for rating components and the item ratings assigned by the inspection team. Individual trip reports from the inspectors are in Appendix D.

6.2. Recommendations. The rated items of concern discussed in the previous sections have contributed to minimally acceptable and unacceptable determinations for some specific rated items. The sponsor should begin correcting minimally acceptable rated items so they do not deteriorate further and become unacceptable. Unacceptable rated items which lead to an LSOdesignated minimally acceptable segment of system rating must be corrected within the established timeframe, not to exceed two years. Unacceptable items which lead to an unacceptable segment or system should be corrected immediately.

The inspection team's recommendations for each segment are listed below.

6.2.1. Segment AROl.
• Provide updated Operations and Maintenance Manuals of levees and pump stations, including as-built plans and supporting data.
• Unwanted vegetation including their entire root system, especially dying or dead trees and stumps, should be removed from the vegetation-free zones and root-free zones, and the voids created should be backfilled with compacted impervious fill in accordance with the current USACE requirements. The only acceptable vegetative ground cover in the vegetation-free zone should be perennial grasses.
• Unauthorized encroachments should be removed from the easement areas. The limits of private property and/or the easement area should be verified to identify unauthorized encroachments. Also, verifications should be conducted to see if encroachment permits were issued to the observed encroachments.
• Improved traffic barricades should be provided in areas where the streets dead-end at the AROl levee to better control unauthorized vehicle access.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
• Eroded areas should be repaired.
• Bank protection should be provided under the Norwood A venue Bridge. • The previously repaired bank-caving area near LM 1.80 should be studied to determine if repairs are needed.
• Flap gates should be cleared of sediments and debris. • Condition of pipes in levee should be verified using television camera video recording or visual inspection methods at five year intervals. Reports of the inspection should be provided for review.

6.2.2. Segment AR2B.
• Provide updated Operations and Maintenance Manuals of levees and pump stations, including as-built plans and supporting data.
• Unwanted vegetation including their entire root system, especially dying or dead trees and stumps, should be removed from the vegetation-free zones and root-free zones, and the voids created should be backfilled with compacted impervious fill in accordance with the current USACE requirements. The only acceptable vegetative ground cover in the vegetation-free zone should be perennial grasses.
• Areas with sparse to no sod cover should be restored. Vegetation-free zones should, when dry, be mowed to a height of3-6 inches at any time the grass reaches a height of 12 inches. Mowing should be triggered by grass heights of less than 12 inches if important to the health maintenance of the particular grass species. The maximum height of grasses shall be 12 inches. Sod cover should be restored or repaired in sod cover missing or damaged areas.
• Study and analysis should be conducted to check the stability and seepage gradient of the area where a relatively large pond was observed at the waterside toe near Levee Mile

0.55. Areas with potential instability should be repaired or monitored for movement. • Condition of pipes in levee should be verified using television camera videotaping or visual inspection methods at five year intervals. Reports of the inspection should be provided for review.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

6.2.3. Segment AR03.
• Provide updated Operations and Maintenance Manuals of levees and pump stations, including as-built plans and supporting data.
• Unwanted vegetation including their entire root system, especially dying or dead trees and stumps, should be removed from the vegetation-free zones and root-free zones, and the voids created should be backfilled with compacted impervious fill in accordance with the cutTent USACE requirements. The only acceptable vegetative ground cover in the vegetation-free zone should be perennial grasses.
• Unauthorized encroachments should be removed from the easement areas. The limits of private property and/or the easement area should be verified to identify unauthorized encroachments. Also, verifications should be conducted to see if encroachment permits were issued to the observed encroachments.
• Condition of pipes in levee should be verified using television camera video recording or visual inspection methods at five year intervals. Reports of the inspection should be provided for review.
• National Levee Database levee miles (i.e. unit_line_stationing) should be revised to conform to levee miles system shown in the system map.

6.2.4. Segment AR3B (MAlO and MAll).
• Provide updated Operations and Maintenance Manuals of levees and pump stations, including as-built plans and supporting data.
• Unwanted vegetation including their entire root system, especially dying or dead trees and stumps, should be removed from the vegetation-free zones and root-free zones, and the voids created should be backfilled with compacted impervious fill in accordance with the current USACE requirements. The only acceptable vegetative ground cover in the vegetation-free zone should be perennial grasses.
• Unauthorized encroachments should be removed from the easement areas. The limits of private property and/or the easement area should be verified to identify unauthorized encroachments. Also, verifications should be conducted to see if encroachment permits were issued to the observed encroachments.
• Flap gates should be cleared of sediments and debris.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
• Condition of pipes in levee should be verified using television camera videotaping or visual inspection methods at five year intervals. Reports of the inspection should be provided for review.
• Revise the LIS segment system to subdivide the existing AR3B into two segments aligned with MAIO and MAll to match historic designations Maintenance Areas 10 and

11. 6.2.5. Sacramento County Sump 005.
• Replace safety switch conduit.
• Safety compliance results were not at the site at the time of inspection. They should be provided for evaluation.
• Power and motor Megger test results were not at the site at the time of inspection. They should be provided for evaluation.

6.2.6. Sacramento County Sump 043.
• Remove items on top of the switchgear and establish a storage space. • Protect service transformer with bollard fencing.
• Safety compliance results were not at the site at the time of inspection. They should be provided for evaluation.
• Power and motor Megger test results were not at the site at the time of inspection. They should be provided for evaluation.

6.3. Certification. Discussion of impacts to the certification is beyond the scope of the subject periodic levee inspection contract.

6.4. Next Periodic Inspection. The next periodic inspection should be scheduled for 2015.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Appendix A
Figures

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONL Y
(
Map Legend
ProJect Levees NLD SYSTEMS and SEGMENTS
(\.IS c- ond SogmwO Langtll Mop ..... )
SYSTEM: MA 09 - City of Soc ram onto- Amorloan R loft bank - L.I'\1 4 Amencan RMM'Ieft '*'l( (.-.R04 · 10 61)
- LJn( 5. Sacr1111'111nto RrYir (AR05 • 041 )
- -""'· Milp was modified by GHT2 (11/1712009) ..

Fe ft.AL LEVee PROJECTS

SYSTEIIS MAP

AMERICAN RIVER FCD
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SACRAMENTO DISTRICT
Page A- I
" t
.,

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LEGEND
- - hlel\1 ot Lrvu1 In Jhll Unlf.
~111.1 IN UILII
~

LOCATION MA P
UNIT NO. 118- PAflT 00. 2
EAST LEVEE Uf IIATOMA $ (AIIAL
BOTH LEVEES OF ARCADE REE~
AND SOUTH Lf.VH (If UUDI. · Rf~t.

Page A-2
.,._, ,.,_
•
"' t
II
/
I
' '
/
•·
I
.~
--:-~ . I -..
5 I ~
A';· C R .:1 ~·
II •' ,1/ ·, .•· 'I ;
. I
I I --~ ...
:
"';:.·' TITLE
q~ I'~ (lflS•oo• C...JHf~Jt:f
~ ...

N
..........
""·-
'
T ---0
Ul'l.. "-«<<I "'-•"' ..,.. .,..,.,.,
... ,.. ! ................ ,,.,~ \
·'*'·· ~ ~ ~.:--..::.=:.~ r- c ::; ! ~~~ 4KIU. ' l OU.l iU I '-<UV" · , ..,., . '~ ··--n.aJ,I, " ......... ~~: : ~·' -T ~~~u"'-"'"" _ ..... ,,., ! llo.l\!~'~ "'-~ - ~~ a.~n•'""can...,Oir ... , .-<tltiJit ,
c:..tn
t.,l.C'{tiCAL~f
•c.... •.,.,.
"'-
~
.....
.. :: ~ • 1 ~, • ~:!•C:, ':::...=-&.~~1 ..,.. rcr.wt.t
;
~
I
L---·-
\]
I
/
\
•As CONSTRUCTED"
....
1,
/' "
u .... ... ,.,.,.
)
-· ~<-- ___ ......__'-_ ,_ ..
.LtE ----- c~ r :w... •>c.~ .....,.....,._ .__
.-..... 1.\ o"f f
ee_... C.*"'W.:r~ · KCJ'.,)o, .. ""
:: .• ~ ·~ ~· ~· ' •)tt, ..
- C::::'~...!':' -·.-::-:.·~ .-::::=- """'IIW.M~.CA&.., ...... HOO) CONTROL IIIAOJ!CT f.or1 r~ ta Corft"'lcN:J•l I.Jivtta
..... Fi..,~~NGP'(Ar.:n ~ /:~~RI~ rAINAGE
I - 4 • 4!2
ge A-3
,

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
J
AV£
LEGEND
= -Extent of Levee in this Unit.

SCALE IN F[('f
zoo:>' o' 2000' •ooc' _ 6000'

LOCATION MAP
AMERICAN RIVER- PART i~0.2

LEVEE CONSTRUCTION
FROM

CARMICHAEL BLUFFS
DOWN STREAM B.3 MILES

E XHIBIT A
Page A-4
Page A-5
---- - - --- - -
LOCA :rON JF PRO~ECT S
I I
+
~
A Le rt Bonk Lev~e ~':!1S1ng
near Moy . .,e ~ ~>o-r
8 Moy!-'e w ~a r Clcsur~ ~rv:t.Jr'?
.--: "lt B G'lk LP •J(' E' Ro s r :;!
neC.r Howe Ave'"lue
G 2'c;-: ' )ar k l e•,e.:: St-..:orgtl->:' .... ng r e c r '! : ·: DC :;:.:~n t Eo.., k u:":'·J€f' S~rer'l-? l·,~r ·~•.:;
-.ec _ J C·)'J LCJr,e
CRAP'- ~ SCAL~
sooo o sooo · oc:~
~~~-~--~-~--~~~~~~~~ 1" scco· r.f::lAJtJ&oi.( ... T Of H( AA.WT ~IOOI~"l!ICI
~:Y[o£,1Jof(,ll'\
Sa.CAI.t.I("'TO C..ofOII!Io-! 4
!..toal...w(J'II() C().rl.l• :.t.~...roooA""£1<:1("' Qo!V[R 'IIA't&Q9 c~ ~~··lJI1'{s f Scole· -" = sooo· a 5EP 2ooo cAT<: 1
~------------------------------------------------------------------~~~~----~--~ FOR OFFICIAL USL ONLY Page A-6
(

FOR OFFJCIAL USE ONLY

LF GEND
e CPT-XX
DH-X
2F-XX-X
Loca tion of Explorat ion.

GRAPH C SCA.E
,ooc sec I""SJ"'"--- 1000
, .. = 1000'
2000
OCPA.RTWCNT Of n€ AJIWY
SACJilMIO!lO IKUDCT
..,._,.,.""""""" """"""""""" ~ro CG.Mrr CALI"O'MA
.u4C'RfCA~ RIVER V!ftD.-. i9 cc.twON Fl:A lURES
IGHT BANK L£VEE STR£NG111ENINC NEAR N.E.J.C.O.C
LOCATION OF EXPLORA TlONS
Page A-7
I
os
o._
• "' " ..-;
0 ~ Scale:
1 1

L E GEND
. DH-X
2f-XX-X Locatior of Explor ation.
1000 500 ,........._ GRAP-IC SCALE
0 1000 2000
1" ~ 1000'
OEPARTUOH Of IH( .....m4':'
...,._,.., """''" TO l'!'
SAai:A&«l """'"'fl """""" ~
CJtL.f"Qq~~V.

A.M£.RtCAN Rfltt:R 'NROA 99 CQW.ION FU. ~
RICH T BAN!< LEVEE Sl'RENC1H£NINC NEAR JACOB LANE

LOCATION OF EXPLORATIONS
~ L-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~~~~~~ ~~ ~ FOR OFFICIA L USE ONLY Page A-8
(
-- •r U'P OAR
LOCAnON MAP

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
t QCirrCil.OI..oCHBJIII(~f'Oit-...1101111-a:atUMO..
,.,.. .. JU \NL1S OMJr'IGC IIIICI'lU
t. IIC QCIIfMIIICfQI: ......... ~t COlA.....,_ ~"11:110 fO nc CVTorr ·~ ~C1 L.Ml't.I.C'Ia ...oc::ru,...,. ...o l.l'VU liltOAOI .-IWUJO oiCICDI ~ .-Q ~lCO ....... .._.. ). l1111Ul' III(Ct1.$10 TICL.f"U~a-t!U.KOII.f ,..,_ftC
~~
l..«lJJIf 1T flC -<USS,_,...~OIIIICMI.-s-...aii
... ,oe~•"ra...
•. TIC OOII'IIUIC"!~ ~ -=-1 \M)OII.cl 'III(RC UC01 II'CI I -.tJS ~ .. .-u. l"f DC OON'I...CIIC Clf"fUllt
:1o., h'( COI'I"UC:TOIII IM.L 1101' ~ fi\.Afl'ft ... OYioO .. CI(1oloiiCilll ovr• nc ....... t11 nc ...,.,.c, ........,
• nc COI4"'-'Cn:'IM C,.liiOCJn oiLOIIC N lf'IIU eo.ou. IIOf ("1'!00 •rtJe • "'',.... roc UtG sa: Me rAlellllll' L('wQ IOU. ...._nt ~...,... .CWB 01t ~ rt llC QOitlftCrtc arraJl ~- UhCJII .......U til MNt.ll. ...,. ""'" PC COie~P> ~ tu tpGI C·2 S....O.OO'r

LOCATION MAP
, .I Ll. u..tlliDIIDft .... !'D MnS Pftal .. ~.
t- ftC....::- '"' .IT tiOC CJI(IIt. .lll,.IC ~ B _........., ,. • ...,. nc ICM;1III •tac... .,.._ UXAl'DI .e oto~ •a..a~OI' • fiiiO'IICID 011 ..:1'1 $•1111C) .JI 10 ...... .. tiC ~- ....... "''II1U1 C.. Tut. M tl'o- 011
Mtll e-'~ r·•! • ~to Sf(CIInCI.lOIQII»
............. ).11.1111

0. ... ~, .. ~ ~ OroUKt JO c:vnu.oca. -....0111. IL.IO< .... ..,. YIIILJ.I '( Qll(,.lll(a aD,.I.N'I: 0C. .-.QIIAtTIIIJOeo'rtl1tiiiiSJI4 ... ._5tCITSC•I
lloiii(J.Oo c-"L liK' no: ,....,. ~ .......o II£OM!D ~
COCJIIIUCIIiD' ~ .,_... COC • ~to
ft(IJ1C.UOiotlJQ..~l, ..

L OJlOfT Y'llL1. r~ ltO'W[ ~ fO ""-Tt .W0U:

WAS ~flO U(liJt ...O'floU! C(lllf'lt.ll:l
ON.Cir'ICAnoN ~ .. _.. OUCiJrl ru ~
-ct n
N(\IAOA

WESTERN STATES MAP
I
I
I
·-I
.· l
I
Page A-10

1.1 1.1
This map was created using the Levee Inspection
System (LIS). The river miles shown are based on
the "Sacramento System River Miles" The levee
miles shown are based on the "National Levee
Database" The levee miles of units AR03 and AR3B
are not shown because they are in conflict with the
levee mile system used by the local districts.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page A-ll
This map was created using the Levee Inspection
System (LIS). The river miles shown are based on
the "Sacramento System River Miles" The levee
miles shown are based on the "National Levee
Database" The levee miles of units AR03 and AR3B
are not shown because they are in confiict with the
levee mile system used by the local districts.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page A-12
\
(
This map was created using the Levee Inspection
System (LIS). The river miles shown are based on
the "Sacramento System River Miles" The levee
miles shown are based on the "National Levee
Database" The levee miles of units AR03 and AR3B
are not shown because they are in conflict with the
levee mile system used by the local districts.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page A-13

3.8 This map was created using the Levee Inspection
System (LIS). The river miles shown are based on
the "Sacramento System River Miles" The levee
miles shown are based on the "National Levee
Database" The levee miles of units AR03 and AR3B
are not shown because they are in conflict with the
levee mile system used by the local districts.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PageA-14
\

6.6 '' . \
..-\
(
This map was created using the Levee Inspection
System (LIS). The river miles shown are based on
the "Sacramento System River Miles" The levee
miles shown are based on the "National Levee
Database" The levee miles of units AR03 and AR3B
are not shown because they are in confiict with the
levee mile system used by the local districts.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page A-15

5.9 This map was created using the Levee Inspection
System (LIS). The river miles shown are based on
the "Sacramento System River Miles" The levee
miles shown are based on the "National Levee
Database" The levee miles of units AR03 and AR3B
are not shown because they are in confiict with the
levee mile system used by the local districts.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
.,-

9.1 Page A-16
This map was created using the Levee Inspection
System (LIS). The river miles shown are based on
the "Sacramento System River Miles". The levee
miles shown are based on the "National Levee
Database". The levee miles of units AR03 and AR3B
are not shown because they are in conflict with the
levee mile system used by the local districts.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page A-17
This map was created using the Levee Inspection
System (LIS). The river miles shown are based on
the "Sacramento System River Miles". The levee
miles shown are based on the "National Levee
Database". The levee miles of units AR03 and AR3B
are not shown because they are in confiict with the
levee mile system used by the local districts.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

13.6 13.5
13:4

13.3 13.2

12.9 12.8

12.7 I

12.6 12.5
I

12.4 PageA-18
(
/ 14.7
14 6
This map was created using the Levee Inspection
System (LIS). The river miles shown are based on
the "Sacramento System River Miles" The levee
miles shown are based on the "National Levee
Database". The levee miles of units AR03 and AR3B
are not shown because they are in confiict with the
levee mile system used by the local districts.
1>~ --~cr'·''---:.::. 4.2 ~ , •. s
/ \ 14.3
/ 13:9
; "'
;"''
r
13 r
:4
l

13.3 \ "\ 13:1
_..1J ....
\

12.9 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

12.8 12.7

12.6 /
/ " ·'
/ 14.9
Page A-19
-. 2
.. ... .-
COH'I'OUR INTERVAL ~ Y[['T
~t~o;... "4iA (A Ltv(L
® '"" MAP CO"flli'\ J W '"" HA' At. ... ~ \JRA.!""f' ST.I-.DrA~ FOR $AU BY U $ CEO~OGICAI. SURVEY. OCHV[R. COlORAOO 10t25. OR wA$J<oHOTOH. D C 20242 A rOLDC.R DOCittiiMJ ~te WAPI Mo10 l"ttr.leot..l II AVMMU 0,. KO\IUT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page A-20

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

OEOLOCICAL SURVEY
l"lO' on-L
(
,~
~'?
\
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page A-21
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLy Page A-22
(
FOR OFFICIAL USE ON Ly Page A-23
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLy Page A-24
Appendix B
Photographs

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Photo #1:

AR01, 12/30/2009
Caption: Stumps and root systems in landside
slope; sod missing.

Photo #2:

AR01, 12/30/2009
Caption: Large trees and heavy brush in landside
vegetation-free zone.

Photo #3:

AR01, 12129/2009
Caption: Large tree on waterside slope.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page B-1
Photo #4:

AR01, 12/30/2009
Caption: Large tree on landside slope; fence and
buildings at Jandside toe.

Photo #5:

AR01, 12/30/2009
Caption: Debris dumped on waterside slope.

Photo #6:

AR01, 12/29/2009
Caption: Chain-link fence and utility poles near
landside toe.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page B-2
Photo #7
AROI, 12/29/2009
Caption: Erosion under Norwood Avenue bridge.

Photo #8:

A RO I, 12/3012009
Caption: Moderate erosion of waterside toe; note
large rock and geotextile placed to mitiga te
Photo #9:

AROI, 12/29/2009
Caption: Large active rodent hole on landside
slope; flag on right side in background is ARFCD
burrow marker.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page B-3
Photo #10:

AR01, 12/29/2009
Caption: Flap ga te blocked open by debris.

Location is ncar Del Mar Way.

Photo #II:

AR2B, 12/29/2009
Caption: Large trees within 15 feet of wa terside
levee toe.

Photo #12:

AR2B, 12/29/2009
Caption: Large trees on landside ra ilroad
embankment.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page B-4
Photo #13:

AR2B, 1212912009
Caption: Typical conditions for sod cover on
landside slope above railroad embankment.

Photo #14:

AR2B, 12/29/2009
Caption: Pond below waterside toe (northern
extent of pond).

Photo #15:

AR2B, 12/29/2009
Caption: Rodent holes on landside slope up to 6
inches in diameter.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page B-5
Photo #16:

AR03, 12/30/2009
Caption: La rge trees in landside slope near Cal
Expo.

Photo #17:

AR03, 12/30/2009
Caption: Trees and brush on waterside slope
Photo #18:

AR03, 12130/2009
Caption: Large tree stump near waterside toe .

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page B-6
Photo #19:

AR03, 12/3012009
Caption: Large trees in Jandside slope near Cal
Expo
Photo #20:

AR03, 12/30/2009
Caption: Numerous rodent holes on landside
slope.

Photo #21:

AR03, 12/30/2009
Caption: Rodent holes marked with yellow flags
for filling.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page B-7
Photo #22:

AR03, 02/05/2010
Caption: Exposed wires in a conduit elbow at
Pump Station 152.

Photo #23:

AR03, 02/05/2010
Caption: Some fence ground conductors have
been cut at Pump Station 152.

Photo #24:

AR3B, Ol/04/2010
Caption: Large trees on landside slope and
parking lot on landside toe.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page B-8
Photo #25:

AR3B, 01/04/2010
Caption: Typical sod cover on waterside; grass is
healthy, full and short.

Photo #26:

AR3B, 01/04/2010
Caption: Shed and walkway on levee crest.

Other encroachments on the levee crest at this
location include: a planter garden, irrigation
control valves, a fence and gate.

Photo #27:

AR3B, 01/0412010
Caption: Wall and rigid fence on levee crest.

Other encroachments at this location include trees
up to 24 inches diameter with ivy on the lands ide
slope.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page B-9
Photo #28:

AR3B, 12/31/2009
Caption: Fence, trucks, 55-gallon drums, light
posts less than 15 feet from landside toe.

Photo #29:

AR3B, 12/31/2009
Caption: Landside levee slope showing marker
flags for animal control program.

Photo #30:

AR3B, 01/04/2010
Caption: Evidence of numerous rodents on
landside slope.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PageB-10
Photo #31
AR3B, 12/31/2009
Caption: Flap gate stuck in open position due to
debris. Location is at pump station ncar Ethan
Way.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page B-11
Appendix C
Completed Periodic Inspection Checklist

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Name of Segment I System: ARFCD- Unit L Arcade Creek left bank (AROl) I American River Right Bank, NMDEC I California Public Sponsor(s): American River Flood Control District Public Sponsor Representative: Tim Kerr
Sponsor Phone: (916) 929-4006
Sponsor Email: [email protected]
Corps of Engineers Inspector:

Rick Chen, Ken Murphy, Wilson Wong, Larry Vidaurry, G. Frank Ransley, AI DeLeon Date of Inspection: 12/20/2009
Inspection Report Prepared By: Ed Mak, Ed Hultgren Date Report Prepared: 2118/20 I 0 Internal Technical Review (for Periodic Inspections) By: R. Kevin Tillis Date of ITR: 2123120 I 0 ------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Final Approved By: Michael Mahoney Date Approved: 5119120 I 0 Type of Inspection:

Contents of Report:
0 Initial Eligibility Inspection
0 Continuing Eligibility Inspection (Routine)
C8J Continuing Eligibility Inspection (Periodic)
C8J Instructions
0 Initial Eligibility Inspection
C8J General Items for All Flood Control Works
~ Levee Embankment
~ Concrete Floodwalls
0 Sheet Pile and Concrete I-walls
0 Interior Drainage System
0 Pump Stations
0 FDR System Channels
----------------
Overall Segment I System Rating: 0 Acceptable
C8J Minimally Acceptable
0 Unacceptable
Note: In addition to the report contents indicated here, a plan view drawing of the system, with stationing, should be included with this report to reference locations of items rated less than acceptable. Photos of general system condition and any noted deficiencies should also be attached.

Note: This inspection rating represents the Corps evaluation of operations and maintenance of the flood damage reduction system and may be used in conjunction with other information for a levee certification determination for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) purposes if applicable. An Acceptable Corps inspection rating, alone, does not equate to a certifiable levee for the NFIP. It is recommended for levee systems currently accredited by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for NFIP purposes receiving a Corps Minimally Acceptable or Unacceptable rating be evaluated b the levee owner to determine the otential im acts to the certification for FEMA.

US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Public Sponsor Pre-Inspection Form
The following information is to be provided by the levee district sponsor prior to an inspection. This information will be used to help evaluate the organizational capability of the l d evee JStrJct to manage t h l e evee segment I system mam. tenance program.

I. Levee segment I system and district: (name of the segment I system and levee district) ARFCD- Unit I, Arcade Creek left bank (ARO I) I American River Right Bank. NMDEC I California

2. Reporting period: (month/day/year to month/day/year)

3. Summary of maintenance required by last inspection report:

4. Summary of maintenance performed this reporting period:

5. Summary of maintenance planned next reporting period:

6. Summary of changes to segment I system since last inspection:

7. Problems/ issues requiring the assistance of the US Army Corps of Engineers:
""" lii:lil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Pre-Inspection Form
Page I of2
Public Sponsor Pre-Inspection Report
The following information is to be provided by the levee district sponsor prior to an inspection 8 L evee d" Jstnct organization:

Name
Tim Kerr
Richard Marek
Karolyn W. Simon
Brian F. Holloway
Bettina C. Redway
Virginia G. Moose
Derek W. Minnema
~
lli:.lil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
(elected or appointed levee district officials and key employees) Position
General Manager
Superintendent
President
Vice President
Trustee
Treasurer
Secretary
Mailin" Address
165 Commerce Circle, Suite D, Sacramento, CA 95815
165 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 95815
165 Commerce Circle, Suite D, Sacramento, CA 95815
165 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 95815
165 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 95815
165 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 95815
165 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 95815
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Phone Number
(916) 9?9-4006
(916) 9?9-4006
(916) 929-4006
(916) 447-0284
(916) 929-4006
(916) 929-4006
(916) 929-4006
Email Address
[email protected]
[email protected]
garli cgi [email protected]
[email protected]
Pre-Inspection Form

General Instructions for the Inspection of Flood Damage Reduction Segments I Systems A. Purpose of USACE Inspections:

The primary purpose of these inspections is to prevent loss of life and catastrophic damages; preserve the va lue of Federal in vestments, and to encourage non-Federal sponsors to bea r responsibility for their own protection. Inspections should assure that Flood Damage Reduction structures and facilities are conrinually maintained and operated as necessary to obta in the maximum benefits. Inspections are also conducted to determine eligibility for Rehabilitation Assistance under authority of PL 84-99 for Federal and non-Federa l systems. (ER 1130-2-530, ER 500-1- I) B. Types of Inspections:

The Corps conducts several types of inspections of Flood Damage Reduction systems, as outlined below:

Continuing Eligibility Inspections
Initial Eligibility Inspections
Routine Inspections Periodic l nspections
lEis are conducted to detem1ine whether a non- Rls are intended to verify proper Pis are intended to verify proper maintenance and component operation and to evaluate operational adequacy, Federally constructed Flood Damage Reduction maintenance, owner structural stability, and safety of the system. Periodic In spections evaluate the system's original design criteria system meets the minimum criteria and standards set preparedness, and component vs. currenr design criteria to determine potential performance impacts, evaluate the current conditions, and forth by the Corps for initial inclusion into the operation. compare the design loads and design analysis used against current design standards. This is to be done to Rehabilitation and In spection Program. identify components and feature s for the sponsor that need to be monitored more closely over time or corrected as needed. (Periodic Inspections are used as the basis of risk assessments.) C. Inspection Boundaries:

Inspections should be conducted so as to rate each Flood Damage Reduction "Segment" of the system. The overall system rating will be the lowest segment raring in the system.

Project System Segment
A flood damage reduction project is made up of one A flood damage reduction system is made up of one or more fl ood damage A flood damage reduction segment is defined as a disc rete or more flood damage reduction systems which were reduction segments which collectively provide flood damage reduction to a portion of a flood damage reduction system that is operated and under the same authorization . defined area. Failure of one segment within a system constitutes failure of the maintained by a single entity. A flood damage reduction entire system. Failure of one system does not affect another system. segment can be made up of one or more features (levee, floodwall , pump stations, etc).

D. Land Use Definitions:

The following three definitions are intended for use in detem1ining minimum required inspection intervals and initial requirements for inclusion into the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program.

Inspections should be considered for all systems that would result in significant environmental or economic impact upon fai lure regardless of specific land use .

Agricultural
Protected population in the range of zero to 5
households per square mile protected.
r.lln
lli:lll
US Army Corps
of Engineers"
Rural Urban
Protected popu Jar ion in the range Greater than 20 households per square mile; major industrial areas with significant infrastructure in vestment. of 6 to 20 households per square Some protected urban areas have no permanent population but may be industrial areas with high va lue mile protected. inli-astructure with no ovemight population.

Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
General Instructions
Page I of3
(
E. Use of the Inspection Report Template:

The report template is intended for use in all Anny Co'1's of Engineers inspections of levee and flood wall systems and flood damage reduction channels. The section of the template labeled "" Initial Eligibility" only needs to be completed duri ng Initial Eligibility Inspections of Non-Federally constructed Flood Damage Reduction Systems. The section labeled "General Items" needs to be completed with every inspection, along with all other sections that correspond to features in the system. The section labeled "Pu blic Sponsor Pre-Inspection Report" is intended for completion before the inspection. if possible.

F. Individual Item I Component Ratings:

Assessment of individual components rated during the inspection should be based on the cri teria provided in the inspection report template, though inspectors may inco'1'orate additional items into the report based on the characteristics of the system. The assessment of individual components should be based on the following defin itions.

Acceptable Item Minimally Acceptable Item Unaccepta ble Item The inspected item is in satisfactory condition, with The inspected item has one or more minor deficiencies that need to be The inspected item has one or more serious deficiencies that no defic iencies, and will function as intended during corrected. The mi nor deficiency or deficiencies will not seriously impair the need to be corrected. The seri ous deficiency or defi ciencies will the next fl ood event. functioning of the item as intended during the next flood event. seriously impair the functioning of the item as intended during the next flood event.

G. Overall Segment I System Ratings:

Determination of the overall system rating is based on the defin itions below. Note that an Unacceptable System Rating may be either based on an engineering determination that concluded that noted deficiencies would prevent the system from functioning as intended during the next flood event, or based on the sponsor's demonstrated lack of commitment or inability to correct serious defic iencies in a timely manner.

Acceptable System Minimally Acceptable System Unaccepta ble System A II items or components are rated as Acceptable. One or more items are rated as Minimally Acceptable or one or more items are One or more items are rated as Unacceptable and would prevent rated as Unacceptable and an engineering determination concludes that the the segment I system from perfonning as intended, or a serious Unacceptable items would not prevent the segment I system from performing deficiency noted in past inspections (which had previously as intended during the next flood event. resulted in a min imally acceptable system rating) has not been corrected within the established timeframe, not to exceed two years.

H. Eligibility for PL84-99 Rehabilitation Assistance:

Inspected systems that are not operated and maintained by the Federal government may be Active in the Corps' Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RLP) and eligible for rehabilitation assistance from the C0'1JS as defined below:

If the Overa ll System Rating is Acceptable
The system is active in the RIP and eli gible for
PL84-99 rehabilitation assistance.
~
~ US Army Corps
of Engineers•
If the Overall System Rating is Minimally Acceptable
The system is Active in the RIP during the time that it takes to make needed corrections. Active systems are eligible for rehabilitation assistance.

However, if the sponsor does not present USACE with proof that serious deficiencies (which had previously resulted in a minimally acceptable system rating) were corrected within the established timeframe, then the system will become Inactive in the Rl.P.

Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
If ~ Overa ll System Ra ting is Unacceptable
The system is Inactive in the RIP. and the status will remain Inactive until the sponsor presents USACE with proofthat all items rated Unacceptable have been corrected. Inactive systems are ineligible for rehabilitation assistance.

General Instructions

I. Reporting:

After the inspection, the Corps is responsible for assembling an inspection report (or a summary repo11 if it was a Periodic Inspection) including the following information:
a. All sections of the repo11 template used during the inspection, including the cover and pre-inspection materials. (Supplemental data collected, and any sections of the template that weren't used during the inspection do not need to be included with the report.) b. Photos of the general system condition and noted deficiencies. c. A plan view drawing of the system, with stationing, to reference locations of items rated less than acceptable. d. The relati ve imponance of the identified maintenance issues should be specified in the transminal letter. e. If the Overall System Rating is Minimally Acceptable, the report needs to establish a timeframe for correction of serious deficiencies noted (not to exceed two years) and indicate that if these items are not corrected within the required timeframe, the system will be rated as Unacceptable and made lnactive in the Rehabilitation Inspection Program.

J. Notification:

Reports are to be disseminated as follows within 30 days of the inspection date.

If the Overall System Rating is Acceptable
Reports need to be provided to the local sponsor and
the county emergency management agency.
f.'lllfl
llillll
US Army Corps
of Engine ers"'
If the Overall System Rating is Minimally Acceptable
Reports need to be provided to the local sponsor, state emergency management agency, co unty emergency management agency, and to the FEM A region.

Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
lfthe Overall System Rating is Unacceptable
Reports need to be provided to the local sponsor, state emergency management agency, county emergency management agency, FEMA region, and to the Congressiona l delegation within 30 days of the inspection.

General Instructions

1 2.

3. General Items for All Flood Damage Reduction Segments I Systems For use during all inspections of all Flood Damage Reduction Segments I Systems Rated Item Rating ng Guidelines ~
Operations and Levee Owner's Manual, O&M Manuals, and/or manufacturer's operating instructions are Maintenance A present.

Manuals
M Sponsor manuals are lost or missing or out of date; however, sponsor will obtain manuals M prior to next scheduled inspection.
u Sponsor has not obtained lost or missing manuals identified during previous inspection.

Emergency The sponsor maintains a stockpile of sandbags, shovels, and other flood fight supplies which Supplies and A will adequately supply all needs for the initial days of a flood fight. Sponsor determines Equipment A required quantity of supplies after consulting with inspector. (A or M only) The sponsor does not maintain an adequate supply of flood fighting materials as part of their M preparedness activities.

Flood Sponsor has a written system-specific flood response plan and a solid w1derstanding of how to Preparedness and A operate, maintain, and staff the FOR system during a flood. Sponsor maintains a list of Training emergency contact information for appropriate personnel and other emergency response (A or M only) A agencies.

The sponsor maintains a good working knowledge of flood response activities, but M documentation of system-specific emergency procedures and emergency contact personnel is insufficient or out of date.

Location/Remarks/Recommendations
This segment received a Minimally Acceptable rating for Operations and Maintenance Manuals because the O&M
Manual does not include all modifications to the project since originally constructed, such as the raising the ARO 1 levee, construction offloodwalls at the easterly end of ARO 1, and construction of pump stations.

Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U =Unacceptable. NIA =Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction r.llfl
lli:lll
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
General Items for All Flood Damage Reduction
Segments I Systems
Page I of I
I.

2. Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating GuideUnes Location/Remarks/Recommendations Unwanted The levee has little or no unwanted vegetation (trees, bush, or undesirable weeds), except for On the lands ide at and beyond the levee toe, there are many Vegetation vegetation that is properly contained ancVor situated on overbuilt sections, such that the trees within 15 feet of the levee embankment. These trees Growth' mandatory 3-foot root-free zone is preserved around the levee profile. The levee has been are generall y about 12 to 24 inches in diameter. Many of A recently mowed. The vegetation-free zone extends 15 feet from both the lands ide and these trees are behind fences for private parcels. riverside toes of the levee to the centerline of the tree. lfthe levee access easement doesn't extend to the described limits, then the vegetation-free zone must be maintained to the At a few locations there are trees up to about 24 inches easement limits. Reference EM Ill 0-2-301 or Corps policy for regional vegetation variance. diameter on the landside slope.

Minimal vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or trees 2 inches in diameter or smaller) is present At several locations there are remnant stumps of trees which M within the zones described above. This vegetation must be removed but does not currently threaten the operation or integrity of the levee. have been removed. The stumps are up to about 12 to 24 inches in diameter and are located on the lands ide slope.

Significant vegetation growth (brush, weeds. or any trees greater than 2 inches in diameter) is present within the zones described above and must to be removed to reestablish or ascertain There are many trees on the waterside at and beyond the levee integrity. levee toe. These trees are up to about 24 inches in diameter. u At a few locations, there are trees on the waterside slope ranging in size from about 14 to 24 inches in diameter.

During the periodic inspection, in some areas, the gTass was up to 18 inches tall.
u The levee segment was rated Unacceptable for Unwanted Vegetation Growth primarily due to the presence of rrees and brush on the landside and wa terside slopes and remnant stumps on the landside slope. ~-arge trees may be blown over during wind storms, causing significant damage to the levee embankment. Heavy brush hinders proper inspection of the levee slope surface. Remnant tree roots will
eventually die and rot, leaving voids within the levee
embankment and increasing seepage. Large tree s, heavy
brush and their root systems located in the vegetation-free zone should be removed.

Sod Cover A There is good coverage of sod over the levee.

Approximately 25% of the sod cover is missing or damaged over a significant portion or over M significant portions of the levee embankment. This may be the result of over-grazing or feeding on the levee, unauthori zed vehicular traffic, chemical or insect problems, or burning A during inappropriate seasons.
u
Over 50% of the sod cover is missing or damaged over a significant portion or portions of the levee embankment.

N/A Surface protection is provided by other means.

Key: A= Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = flood Damage Reduction ""' ~ US Army Corps
nf Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Page J of 15
,_

3. 4.

5. 6.
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Encroachments No rrash, debris, unauthori zed farming activity, structures, excavations, or other obstructions The levee segment was rated Unacceptab le for A present within the easement area. Enc roachments have been previously reviewed by the encroachments due to the presence of unauthorized Corps, and it was determined that they do not diminish proper functioning of the levee. encroachments, particularly fences on the lands ide slope and Trash, debris, unauthorized fatming activity, structures, excavations, or other obstructions toe. There are also many utilities, many of which may not u present, or inappropriate activities noted that should be corrected but will not inhibi t be permitted encroachments. These encroachments are
M unlikely to inhibit operation and maintenance of the levee. operations and maintenance or emergency operations. Encroachments have not been The condition of the discharge pipes have not been verified reviewed by the Corps. using television camera vi deo recordings or visual inspection u
Unauthorized encroachments or inappropriate activities noted are likely to inhibit operations methods within the last five years. An Unacceptable rating and maintenance, emergency operations, or negatively impact the integrity of the levee. was assigned.

Closure Structures Closure structure in good repair. Placing equipment, stoplogs, and other materials are readily (Stop Log, A ava ilable at all times. Componems are clearly marked and installation instructions/ Earthen Closures, procedures readily avail able. Trial erections have been accomplished in accorda nce with the Gates, or Sandbag O&M ManuaL
Closures) Any of the following issues is cause for this rating: Closure structure in poor condition. Parts (A or U only) A missing or corroded. Placing equipment may not be available within the anticipated warning u time. The storage vaults cannot be opened during the time of inspection. Components of closure are not clearly marked and installation instructions/ procedures are not readily ava il able. Trial erections have not been accomplished in accordance with the O&M ManuaL N/A
There are no closure structures along this component of the FDR segment I system.

Slope Stability A No slides, sloughs, tension cracking, slope depressions, or bulges are present.

A M Minor slope stability problems that do not pose an immediate threat to the levee embankment. u Major slope stabi lity problems (ex. deep seated sliding) identified that must be repaired to reestablish the integrity of the levee embankment
Erosion/ Bank A
No erosion or bank caving is observed on the landward or ri verward sides of the levee that There are numerous instances of surftcial to minor erosion Caving
M might endanger its stability. on the landside and waterside slopes, caused by foot traffic.

There are areas where minor erosion is occurring or has occurred on or near the levee At a few locations, moderate cuts have been made in the M embankment, but levee integrity is not threatened. landside slope to create improvised stairs for pedestrian Key: A= Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Mai ntenance is required. U =Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction ""' lii:ill
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments