7. 8.
9. Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Erosion or caving is occurring or has occurred that threatens the stability and integrity of the access. In some locations there is rilling of soil on the upper levee. The erosion or caving has progressed into the levee section or into the extended landside slope. These cases of minor erosion shou ld be footprint of the levee foundation and has compromised the levee foundation stability. monitored.
Under the Norwood Avenue bridge, it appears that the soil may be eroding and no bank protection is in place.
At one location on Arcade Creek, it appeared that riprap and geotextile had been installed to mitigate erosion of the creek bank. The riprap has been displaced and is no longer
bunressing or protecting the bank. This location is North of u Diamond Avenue at a point approximately midway bet\veen Del Mar Way and Pamela Drive.
The levee was rated Minimally Acceptable for Erosion/Bank Caving due to a single instance of moderate bank caving on the Arcade Creek bank and erosion under the Nonvood
Avenue Bridge.
Shotcrete or riprap should be install ed under the Nonvood Aven ue bridge to prevent further erosion of the waterside slope. Additional large rock should be placed where the creek bank is being eroded.
Settlement2 No observed depressions in crown. Records exist and indicate no unexplained historical A changes.
A M Minor irregularities that do not threaten integrity of levee. Records are incomplete or inclusive.
u Obvious variations in elevation over significant reaches. No records exist or records indicate that design elevation is compromised.
Depressions/ There are scattered, shallow ruts, pot holes, or other depressions on the levee that are Runing A unrelated to levee senlement. The levee crown, embankments, and access road crowns are well established and drain properly without any ponded water.
A There are some infrequent minor depressions Jess than 6 inches deep in the levee crown, M embankment, or access roads that wi ll pond water. u There are depressions greater than 6 inches deep that wi II pond water.
Cracking A A Minor longirudinal, transverse, or desiccation cracks with no vertical movement along the crack. No cracks extend continuously through the levee crest.
Key: A= Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction ""' lli:lil
US Army Corps
~f ngineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Longitudinal andlor transverse cracks up to 6 inches in depth with no vertica l movement along M the crack. No cracks extend continuously through the levee crest. Longitudinal cracks are no longer than the height of the levee.
Cracks exceed 6 inches in depth. Longitudinal cracks are longer than the height of the levee u andlor exhibit vertical movement along the c rack. Transverse cracks extend through the entire levee width.
I 0. Animal Control A Continuous anima l burrow control program in place that includes the elimination of active Animal Control received a Minimally Acceptable rating burrowing and the filling in of existing burrows. mainly because numerous animal burrows were observed in The existing animal burrow control program needs to be improved. Several burrows are the levee. The sponsor indicated that they maintain an active M present whic h may lead to s.:~page or slope stability problems, and they require immediate anima l control program which includes flagging active M anenrion. rodent holes, baiting rodents, and grouting burrows. Many Animal burrow control program is not effective or is nonexistent. Significant maintenance is grout-filled burrows were observed during the levee
inspection. However, many open anima l burrows, flagged u required to fill existing burrows, and the levee will not provide reliable flood protection until and un-flagged, were also observed during the levee this maintenance is complete. inspection, indicating a more active animal control program is required.
11. Culverts/ There are no breaks, holes, cracks in the discharge pipes/ culverts that would result in Discharge Pipes3 significant water leakage. The pipe shape is still essentially circular. All joints appear to be (This item closed and the soil tight. Corrugated metal pipes, if present, are in good condition with l 00% includes both A of the original coating still in place (either asphalt or galvanizing) or have been relined with concrete and appropriate material, which is still in good condition. Condition of pipes has been verified corrugated metal using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the past five years, pipes.) and the report for every pipe is available for review by the inspector.
There are a small number of corrosion pinholes or cracks that could leak water and need to be repaired, but the entire length of pipe is still structurally sound and is not in danger of collapsing. Pipe shape may be ovalized in some locations but does not appear to be approaching a curvature reversal. A limited number of joints may have opened and soil loss NA M may be beginning. Any open joints should be repaired prior to the next inspection.
Corrugated metal pipes, if present, may be showing corrosion and pinholes but there are no areas with total section loss. Condition of pipes has been verified using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the past live years, and the report for every pipe is available for review by the inspector.
Culvert has deterioration and/or has significant leakage; it is in danger of collapsing or as a lready begun to col lapse. Corrugated metal pipes have suffered 100% section loss in the u invert. HOWEVER: Even if pipes appear to be in good condition, as judged by an external visua l inspection, an Unacceptable Rating will be assigned if the condition of pipes has not been verified using television camera video taping or visua l inspection methods within the past five years, and reports for all pipes are not available for review by the inspector.
N/A There are no discharge pipes/ culverts.
Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR =flood Damage Reduction ""' lii:iil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
..
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines - Location/Remarks/Recommendations
12. Riprap A No riprap displacement or stone degradation that could pose an immediate threat to the Revetments & integrity of channel bank. Riprap intact with no woody vegetation present.
Bank Protecti on Minor riprap displacement or stone degradation that could pose an immediate th reat to the M integrity of the channel bank. Unwanted vegetation must be cleared or sprayed with an appropriate herbicide.
A Significant riprap displacement, exposure of bedding, or stone degradation observed. Scour u activity is undercutting banks, eroding embankments, or impairing channel !lows by causing turbulence or shoaling. Rock protection is hidden by dense brush, trees, or grasses.
NIA There is no riprap protecting this feature of the segment I system, or riprap is discussed in another section.
13. Revetments other
than Riprap
A Existing revetment protection is properly maintained, undamaged, and clearly visible.
Minor revetment displacement or deterioration that does not pose an immediate threat to the M integrity of the levee. Unwanted vegetation must be cleared or sprayed with an appropriate herbicide.
A Significant revetment displacement, deterioration, or exposure of bedding observed. Scour u activity is undercuning banks, eroding embankments, or impairing channel flows by causing turbulence or shoaling. Revetment protection is hidden by dense brush and trees.
NIA There are no such revetments protecting this fearure of the segment I system.
14. U nderseepage Toe drainage systems and pressure relief we lls necessary for maintaining FDR segment I Relief Wells/ Toe system stability during high water functioned properly during the last flood event and no Drainage Systems A sediment is observed in horizontal system (if applicable). Nothing is observed which would indicate that the drainage systems won't function properly during the next flood , and maintenance records indicate regular cleaning. Wells have been pumped tested within the past 5 years and documentation is provided.
A
Toe drainage systems or pressure relief we lls are damaged and may become clogged if they M are not repaired. Maintenance records are incomplete or indicate irregular cleaning and pump testing.
Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FDR segment I u system stability during flood events have fallen into disrepair or have become clogged. No maintenance records. No documentation of the required pump testing.
NIA There are no relief wells/ toe drainage systems along this component of the FDR segment I system.
15. Seepage A No evidence or history of unrepaired seepage, saturated areas, or boils.
A M Evidence or history of minor unrepaired seepage or small sanurated areas at or beyond the lands ide toe but not on the landward slope of levee. No evidence of soil transport.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction ""' lli:iil
US Anny COJVS
" f Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
·· ~
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations u I Evidence or history of active seepage, extensive saturated areas, or boils. 1 Tfthere is significant growth on the levee that inhibits the inspection of animal burrows or other items, the inspection should be ended until this item is corrected. 2 Detailed survey elevations are nom1ally required during Periodic Inspections, and whenever there arc obvious visual settlements. 3 The decision on whether or not USACE inspectors should enter a pipe to perform a detailed inspection must be made at the USACE District level. This decision should be made in conjunction with the District Safety Office, as pipes may be considered confined spaces. This decision should consider the age of the pipe, the diameter of the pipe, the apparent condition of the pipe, and the length of the pipe. I fa pipe is entered for the purposes of inspection , the inspector should record observations with a vi deo camera in order that the condition of the entire pipe, including all joints, can later be assessed. Additionally, the video record provides a baseline to which future inspections can be compared.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U =Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction ""' llillll
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
I
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """ lli:ill
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect JD: AR01_2009 _a_0005 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009 _a_0005_l.jpg Caption: Stumps and root systems in Jandside slope; sod missing.
Inspect ID: AR01 _2009 _a_0027 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009 _a_0027 _l.jpg Caption: Large trees and heavy brush in landside vegetation-free zone.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ~
lli&lll
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
1ZI21/Mm 15:04
Inspect JD: AR01_2009 _a_0055 Name: USACE_CESPK_AROI_2009 _a_0055_ l .jpg Caption: Large tree on waterside slope.
Inspect JD: AROI _2009 _a_0049 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009 _a_0049 _ l.jpg Caption: Erosion under Norwood Avenue bridge.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems "" lli;ill
US Anny Corps
~f Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR01_2009 _a_0053 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009 _a_0053_l.jpg Caption: Active rodent hole on waterside slope.
Inspect ID: AR01_2009 _a_01 31 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009 _a_Ol3l_l.jpg Caption: Large active rodent hole on landside slope; flag on right side in background is ARFCD burrow marker.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
( (
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.lll'l
lli:iil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR0 1_2009_a_Oll5 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009_a_OJI5_2 .jpg Caption: Large tree on landside slope; fence and buildings at Jandside toe.
Inspect ID: AR01_2009 _a_0002 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009 _a_0002_1.jpg Caption: Sod cover missing under trees.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ~
lli:ill
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR01_2009_a_0097 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009_a_0097_1.jpg Caption: Healthy sod cover on waterside slope.
Inspect ID: AR01_2009 _a_0154 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009 _a_0154_1.jpg Caption: Healthy sod cover on lands ide slope.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' ~ US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR01_2009_a_0088 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009_a_0088_1.jpg Caption: Deb1is dumped on waterside slope.
Inspect ID: AR01_2009 _a_OOI5 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009 _a_OOJ 5_1 .jpg Caption: Chain-link fence at Jandside toe.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' Li:lil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR01_2009 _a_0033 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009_a_0033_1.jpg Caption: Fence on landside slope.
Inspect ID: AR01 _2009 _a_Ol 61 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009 _a_0161_1.jpg Caption: Chain-link fence and utility poles near landside toe.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.llfl
lii:iil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR01_2009_a_0091 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01 _2009_a_009l _ l.jpg Caption: Sewer force main access manhole on waterside slope.
Inspect ID: AR01_2009 _a_0095 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009 _a_0095_l.jpg Caption: Typical pedestrian footpath on landside slope.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' lli:.lll
US Anny Corps
nf Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR01_2009_a_0084 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR01_2009_a_0084_1jpg Caption: Minor erosion on wa terside slope likely due to foot traffic.
Inspect ID: AR01_2009 _a_0085 Name: USACE_CESPK_ARO I_2009 _a_0085_ ljpg Caption: Moderate erosion of waterside toe; note large rock and geotextile placed to mitigate erosion.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
l
2. 3.
4. (
Floodwalls
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of all floodwalls Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Unwanted A grass-only or paved zone is maintained on both sides of the floodwall, free of all trees, Vegetation brush, and undesirable weeds. The vegetation-free zone extends 15 feet from both the land Growth 1 and riverside of the floodwall, at ground-level, to the centerline of the tree. Additionally, an 8- A foot root-free zone is maintained around the entire structure, including the floodwall toe, heel, and any toe-drains. If the floodwall access easement doesn't extend to the described limits, then the vegetation-free zone must be maintained to the easement limits. Reference EM 1110- A 2-301 and/or Corps policy for regional vegetation variance.
Minimal vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or trees 2 inches in diameter or smaller) is present M within the zones described above. This vegetation must be removed but does not currently threaten the operation or integrity of the floodwall.
Significant vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or any trees greater than 2 inches in diameter) is u present within the zones described above. This vegetation threatens the operation or integrity of the flood wall and must be removed.
Encroachments No trash, debris, unauthorized structures, excavations, or other obstructions present within the A easement area. Encroachments have been previously reviewed by the Corps, and it was determined that they do not diminish proper functioning of the floodwall.
A Trash, debris, unauthorized structures, excavations, or other obstructions present, or M inappropriate activities noted that should be corrected but will not inhibit operations and maintenance or emergency operations. Encroachments have not been reviewed by the Corps. u Unauthorized encroachments or inappropriate activities noted are likely to inhibit operations and maintenance, emergency operations, or negatively impact the integrity of the floodwall.
Closure Structures Closure structure in good repair. Placing equipment, stoplogs, and other materials are readily (Stop Log A available at all times. Components are clearly marked and installation instructions/ Closures and procedures readily available. Trial erections have been accomplished in accordance with the Gates) O&M Manual.
(A or U only) Any of the following issues is cause for this rating: Closure structure in poor condition. Parts 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 available. 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 FOR segment I system.
Concrete Surfaces Negligible spalling, scaling or cracking. If the concrete surface is weathered or holds A moisture. it is still satisfactory but should be seal coated to prevent freeze/ thaw damage.
A Spalling, scaling, and open cracking present, but the i1mnediate integrity or performance of M the structure is not threatened. Reinforcing steel may be exposed. Repairs/ sealing is necessary to prevent additional damage during periods of thawing and freezing.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction ,.,.
llliUI
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Flood walls
Page I of3
5. 6.
7. Floodwalls
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of all floodwalls Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Surface deterioration or deep cracks present that may result in an unreliabl e structure. Any u surface deterioration that exposes the sheet piling or lies adjacent to monolith joints may indicate underlying reinforcement corrosion and is unacceptable.
Tilting, Sliding or A
There are no significant areas of tilting, sliding, or senlementthat would endanger the Settlement of integrity of the structure.
Concrete There are areas of tilting, sliding, or senlement (either active or inactive) that need to be Structures' repaired. The maximum offset, either latera lly or venically, does not exceed 2 inches unless M the movement can be shown to be no longer actively occurring. The integrity of the struc ture is not in danger.
A There are areas of tilting, sliding, or senlement (either active or inactive) that threaten the structure's integrity and performance. Any movement that has resulted in failure of the waters top (possibly identified by daylight visible through the joint) is unacceptable. u Differential movement of greater than 2 inches between any two adjacent monoliths, either laterall y or venically, is unacceptable unless it can be shown that the movement is no longer active. Also, if the floodwall is of !-wall construction, then any visible or measurable tilting of the wall toward the protected side that has created an open horizontal crack on the riverside base of a mono! ith is unacceptable.
Foundation of A No active erosion, scouring, or bank cavi ng that might endanger the structure's stability.
Concrete
Structures 1 There are areas where the ground is eroding towards the base of the structure. EfTons need to be taken to slow and repair this erosion, but it is not judged to be close enough to the structure or to be progressing rapidly enough to affect structural stability before the next inspection.
M For the purposes of inspection, the erosion or scour is not closer to the riverside face of the wall than twice the floodwall's underground base width if the wall is ofL-wall or T-wall A construction; or if the wall is of sheetpile or !-wall construction, the erosion is not closer than twice the wall's visible height. Additionally. rate of erosion is such that the wall is expected to remain stabile until the next inspection.
Erosion or bank caving observed that is closer to the wall than the limits described above, or is outside these limits but may lead to structural instabilities before the next inspection. u Additionally, if the fl ood wall is of !-wall or sheetpile construction, the foundation is unacceptable if any turf, soi l or pavement material got washed away from the landside of the 1-wall as the result of a previous ovenopping event.
Monolith Joints The joint material is in good condition. The exterior joint sealant is intact and cracking/ A desiccation is minimal. Joint filler material and! or waterstop is not visible at any point.
A The joint material has appreciable deterioration to the point where joint filler material and! or M waters top is visible in some locations. This needs to be repaired or replaced to prevent spalling and cracking during freeze/ thaw cycles, and to ensure water tightness of the joint.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FOR= Flood Damage Reduction r.llr.l
1.-:.11
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Flood walls
8. 9.
(
Floodwalls
For use during Initial and Continuing EJigibiJit)' Inspections of all floodwaJJs Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations The joint material is severely deteriorated or the concrete adjacent to the monolith joints has u spalled and cracked, damaging the waters top; in either case damage has occurred to the point where it is apparent that the joint is no longer watertight and will not provide the intended level of protection during a flood.
NIA There are no monolith joints in the floodwall.
Underseepage Toe drainage systems and pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FDR segment I ReliefWellsl Toe system stability during high water functioned properly during the last flood event and no Drainage Systems A sediment is observed in horizontal system (if applicable). Nothing is observed which would indicate that the drainage systems won't function properly during the next flood, and maintenance records indicate regular cleaning. Wells have been pumped tested within the past 5 years and documentation is provided.
NA Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells are damaged and may become clogged if they M are not repaired. Maintenance records are incomple1e or indicate irregular cleaning and pump testing.
Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FDR segment I u system stability during flood events have fallen into disrepair or have become clogged. No maintenance records. No documentation of the required pump testing.
NIA There are no reliefwellsl toe drainage systems along this component of the FDR segment I system.
Seepage A No evidence or history of unrepaired seepage, saturated areas, or boils.
Evidence or history of minor unrepaired seepage or small saturated areas at or beyond the A M lands ide toe but not on the landward slope of levee. No evidence of soil transport. u Evidence or history of active seepage, extensive saturated areas, or boils. 1 Inspectors must have as-built drawings available during the inspection so that the lateral distance to the heel and toe of the floodwalls can be determined in the field. 2 The sponsor should be monitoring any observed movement to verify whether the movement is active or inacti ve.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FOR= flood Damage Reduction ~
lli:ill
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Flood walls
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Supplemental Data Sheet
This form is intended for the Corps' internal use and may not need to be updated with every inspection.
Name of Segment I System:
Sponsor:
Location:
River Basin:
Project Description :
Authority that Project was Constructed Under:
Date of Construction:
Approximate Annual Maintenance Costs:
Construction:
Maintenance:
C8] Federally Constructed
D Federally Maintained
National Flood Insurance Program:
a. Is the project currently NFJP? C8J Yes D No
b. lfin theNFIP, DateofCertification (per44 CFR 65 . 10):
Datum Information:
a. Datum used for the design and construction of this proj ect is:
b. Current recommended datum for this project is:
D Non-Federally Constructed
C8] '\on-Federally Maintained
C. Has the Project been converted to the current recommended datum? DYes C8] No Levee Embankment Data:
a. Levee Designed Gage Function Reading/Station:
b. Level of Protection Provided:
c. Average Height of Levee:
d. Average Crown Width :
e. Average Side Slope:
r.'lllr.ll
~ US Am1y Corps
of Engineers®
Protected Features (For use in preparing estimates and P!Rs):
a. Total acres protected:
b. Total agriculture production acres protected:
c. Towns:
d. Businesses:
e. Residences:
f Roads:
g. Utilities:
h. Bams:
1. Machine Sheds:
j. Outbuildings:
k. Irrigation Systems:
I. Grain Bins:
m. Other Facilities:
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Supplemental Data Sheet
Page I of 1
Unit 1, Arcade Creek Left Bank l
Inspect ID Feature Easting 1
USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0014 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4414 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0026 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4387 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0032 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4338 USACE_CESPK AR01 2009 a 0055 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4522 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0062 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4474 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0075 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4418 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0082 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4373 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0089 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4331 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0115 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4470 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0142 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4568 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0145 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4568 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0153 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4474 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0154 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4465 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0005 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4426 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0139 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4503 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0008 3. Encroachments -121.4431 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0015 3. Encroachments -121.4414 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0027 3. Encroachments -121.4378 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0028 3. Encroachments -121.4347 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0033 3. Encroachments -121.4338 USACE_CESPK AR01 2009 a 0045 3. Encroachments -121.4671 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0056 3. Encroachments -121.4513 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0088 3. Encroachments -121.4331 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0147 3. Encroachments -121.4671 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0148 3. Encroachments -121.4662 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0151 3. Encroachments -121.4567 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0152 3. Encroachments -121.4551 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0155 3. Encroachments -121.4474 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0156 3. Encroachments -121.4465 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0161 3. Encroachments -121.4542 USACE CESPK AR01 2009 a 0162 3. Encroachments -121.4478 Note: This is not an all inclusive list of unacceptable rated items and should be used as a means to identify similar issues within the levee segment. '
Northing Easting 2 Northing_,
38.6273 -121.4392 38.6277
38.6279 -121.4349 38.6276
38.6274 -121.4326 38.6273
38.6251 0.0000 0.0000
38.6251 0.0000 0.0000
38.6273 0.0000 0.0000
38.6280 0.0000 0.0000
38.6273 0.0000 0.0000
38.6253 0.0000 0.0000
38.6238 0.0000 0.0000
38.6238 0.0000 0.0000
38.6251 0.0000 0.0000
38.6253 0.0000 0.0000
38.6272 0.0000 0.0000
38.6250 0.0000 0.0000
38.6270 -121.4418 38.6273
38.6273 -121.4392 38.6278
38.6280 -121.4349 38.6276
38.6276 -121.4340 38.6274
38.6274 -121.4326 38.6273
38.6196 0.0000 0.0000
38.6251 0.0000 0.0000
38.6273 0.0000 0.0000
38.6195 0.0000 0.0000
38.6199 0.0000 0.0000
38.6237 0.0000 0.0000
38.6240 0.0000 0.0000
38.6251 0.0000 0.0000
38.6253 0.0000 0.0000
38.6245 0.0000 0.0000
38.6249 0.0000 0.0000
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
(
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Name of Segment I System: ARFCD- Unit 2 south, NMDEC below Arcade Creek (AR2B) 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, Dave Brotchie, AI DeLeon Date of Inspection: 1212912009
Inspection Report Prepared By: EdMak Date Report Prepared: 2118/2010 ------------------------------------------------------------ Internal Technical Review (for Periodic Inspections) By: R. Kevin Tillis Date of ITR: 2123120 I 0 ------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Final Approved By: Michael Mahoney Date Approved: 5/19/20 10 Type of Inspection:
Contents of Report:
D Initial Eligibility Inspection
D Continuing Eligibility Inspection (Routine)
[8J Continuing Eligibility Inspection (Periodic)
[8J Instructions
D Initial Eligibility Inspection
[8J General Items for All Flood Control Works
[8J Levee Embankment
IXJ Concrete Floodwalls
D Sheet Pile and Concrete 1-walls
D Interior Drainage System
D Pump Stations
D FOR System Channels
Overall Segment I System Rating:
-----------------
D Acceptable
[8J Minimally Acceptable
D 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 conj unction with other information for a levee certification detern1ination for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) purposes if applicable. An Acceptable Corps inspection rating, alone, does not equate to a certifiable levee for the NFlP. lt 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 infonnation 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 I evee d. 1stnct to manage t h e I evee segment I system mamtenance program.
I. Levee segment I system and district: (name of the segment I system and levee district) ARFCD- Unit 2 south, l\'MDEC below Arcade Creek (AR2B) I American River Right Bank, NMDEC I California
2. Reporting period : (month/day/year to month/day/yea r)
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:
r.'llr.ll
lii:iil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Pre-Inspection Form
Page I of 2
Public Sponsor Pre-Inspection Report
The following information is to be provided by the levee district sponsor prior to an inspection
8. Levee district organization: (elected or appointed levee district officials a nd key employees) Name
Tim Kerr
Richard Marek
Karolyn W. Simon
Brian F. Holloway
Bettina C. Redway
Virginia G. Moose
Derek W. Minnema
""" lii:iil
US Arrny Corps
of Engineers®
Position
General Manager
Superintendent
President
Vice President
Trustee
Treasurer
Secretary
Mailing Address
I 65 ConU11erce Circle, Suite D, Sacrament, CA 958 I 5
I 65 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacrament, CA 958 15
I 65 Commerce Circle, Suite D, Sacrament, CA 958 15
J 65 Commerce Circle, Suite D, Sacrament, CA 95815
165 Commerce Circle, Suite D, Sacrament, CA 958 15
J 65 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacrament, CA 958 15
165 Conunerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacrament, CA 958 I 5
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Phone Number
(9 I 6) 929-4006
(9 I 6) 929-4006
(9 I 6) 929-4006
(916) 447-0284
(916) 929-4006
(9 16) 929-4006
(9 I 6) 929-4006
Email Address
tkerr@a rfcd.org
[email protected]
[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 value of Federal investments, and to encourage non-Federal sponsors to bear responsibility for their own protection. inspections should assure that Flood Damage Reduction structures and facilities are continually maintained and operated as necessary to obtain the maximum benefits. Inspections are also conducted to determine eligibility for Rehabilitation Assistance under authority of PL 84-99 for Federal and non-Federal systems. (ER 1130-2-530, ER 500-1-1) B. Types of Inspections:
1l1e Corps conducts several types of inspections of Flood Damage Reduction systems, as outlined below:
Continuing Eligibility Inspections
Initial Eligibility Inspections
Routine Inspections Periodic Inspections
lEis are conducted to determine 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 Inspections evaluate the system's original design criteria system meets the minimum criteria and standards set preparedness, and component vs. current design criteria to detem1ine 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 Inspection Program. identifY components and features 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 rating 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 flood damage A flood damage reduction segment is defined as a discrete 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, flood wall, pump stations, etc).
D. Land Use Definitions:
1l1e following three definitions are intended for use in detennining minimum required inspection intervals and initial requirements for inclusion into the Rehabilitation and Inspection Progmm.
Inspections should be considered for all systems that would result in significant environmental or economic impact upon failure regardless of specific land use.
Agricultural
Protected population in the range of zero to 5
households per square mile protected.
~
~ US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Rural Urban
Protected population in the range Greater than 20 households per square mile; major industrial areas with significant infrastructure investment. of 6 to 20 households per square Some protected urban areas have no pennanent population but may be industrial areas with high value mile protected. infrastructure with no ovemight population.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Genera! Instructions
(
E. Use of the Inspection Report Template:
The report template is intended for use in all Army Corps of Engineers inspections of levee and floodwall systems and fl ood damage reduction channels. The section of the template labeled " Initial Eligibility" only needs to be completed during 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 "Public 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 criteria provided in the inspection report template, though inspectors may incorporate additional items into the report based on the characteristics of the system. The assessment of individual components should be based on the following definitions.
Acceptable Item Minimally Acceptable Item Unacceptable 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 deficiencies. and will function as intended during corrected. The minor deficiency or deficiencies will not seriously impair the need to be corrected. The seri ous deficiency or deficiencies 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 definitions below. Note that an Unacceptable System Rating may be either based on an engineering determination that conc luded that noted deficiencies would prevent the system from functioning as intended dunng the next flood event, or based on the sponsor's demonstrated Jack of commitment or inability to correct serious deficiencies in a timely manner.
Acceptable System Minimally Acceptable System Unacceptable System All 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 detennination concludes that the the segment I system from performing 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 minimally 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 (RIP) and eligible for rehabilitation assistance from the Corps as defined below:
If the Overall System Rating is Acceptable
The system is active in the RIP and eligible for
PL84-99 rehabilitation assistance.
r.Pfl
lli:lll
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 RIP.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
If the Overall System Rating is Unacceptable
The system is Inactive in th e RfP, and the status will remain Inactive until the sponsor presents USACE with proof that 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 report if it was a Periodic Inspection) including the following information:
a. All sections of the report 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 relative importance of the identified maintenance issues should be specified in the transmittal letter. e. lfthe 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 Inactive 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.
~
lll:ill
US Army Corps
of Engineers~
If the Overall System Rating is Minimally Acceptable
Reports need to be provided to the local sponsor, state emergency management agency, county emergency management agency, and to the fi ·:MA region.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
If the 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 Congressional 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 Rating 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 understanding 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 was rated Minimally Acceptable for
Operations and Maintenance Manuals because the manuals
do not include all modifications to the project since
originally constructed, such as the raising the AR2B levee and constructing and abandoning pump stations.
Key: A= Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U =Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FOR= Flood Damage Reduction ~
llii:ill
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
General Items for All Flood Damage Reduction
Segments I Systems
l.
2. 3.
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Unwanted The levee has little or no unwanted vegetation (trees, bush, or undesirable weeds), except for For most of the length of the AR2B segment, the levee Vegetation vegetation that is properly contained and/or situated on overbuilt sections, such that the features a railroad embankment adjacent to the upper flood Growth 1 mandatory 3-foot root-free zone is preserved around the levee profile. The levee has been control lands ide slope. There are many trees on and near the A recently mowed. The vegetation-free zone extends 15 feet from both the landside and lands ide railroad embankment slope. According to the local riverside toes of the levee to the centerline of the !Tee. If the levee access easement doesn't sponsor, the ARFCD is not currently allowed to perfonn extend to the described limits, then the vegetation-free zone must be maintained to the maintenance on the lower portion of the railroad easement limits. Reference EM 1110-2-301 or Corps policy for regional vegetation variance. embankment. To develop the segment rating for Unwanted Minimal vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or trees 2 inches in diameter or smaller) is present Vegetation Growth, trees below the upper levee slope were M within the zones described above. This vegetation must be removed but does not currently not included.
M threaten the operation or integrity of the levee. There are no trees on the lands ide embankment above the Significant vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or any trees greater than 2 inches in diameter) is railroad alignment. present within the zones described above and must to be removed to reestablish or ascertain levee integrity. Near Railroad Drive there are several trees up to about 15 inches diameter are near the waterside toe.
u There were no trees observed on the waterside slope.
The levee was rated Minimally Acceptable for Unwanted
Vegetation Growth due to the presence of large trees near the waterside toe near Railroad Drive.
Sod Cover A There is good coverage of sod over the levee. The levee was rated Minimally Acceptable for Sod Cover Approximately 25% of the sod cover is missing or damaged over a significant portion or over because grass on the lands ide slope above the railroad alignment was sparse to non-existent or was in very poor M significant portions of the levee embankment. This may be the result of over-grazing or health in many areas. feeding on the levee, unauthorized vehicular traffic, chemical or insect problems, or buming M 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.
Encroachments No trash, debris, unauthorized farrning activity, structures, excavations, or other obstructions This component received a Unacceptable rating because A present within the easement area. Encroachments have been previously reviewed by the railroad-related debris has been discarded at several Corps, and it was detem1ined that they do not diminish proper functioning of the levee. locations on the mid-slope bench where the railroad Trash, debris, unauthorized farrning activity, structures, excavations, or other obstructions alignment is located. There are numerous abandoned utility u present, or inappropriate activities noted that should be corrected but will not inhibit poles on the midslope bench between the levee and the M operations and maintenance or emergency operations. Encroachments have not been railroad embankment. The exisiting encroachments are reviewed by the Corps. unlikely to hinder levee operations and maintenance. The condition of the discharge pipes have not been verified using u
Unauthorized encroachments or inappropriate activities noted are likely to inhibit operations television camera video recordings or visual inspection and maintenance, emergency operations, or negatively impact the integrity of the levee. methods within the last five years.
Key: A= Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction r.!lfl
lii:lil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
4. 5.
6. 7.
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location!Remarks!Recommendations Closure Structures Closure structure in good repair. Placing equipment, stoplogs, and other materials are readily (Stop Log, A
available at all times. Components are clearly marked and installation instructions/ Earthen Closures, procedures readily available. Trial erections have been accomplished in accordance 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) NA missing or corroded. Placing equipment may not be available within the anticipated warning u time. The s\Orage vaults cannot be opened during the time of inspection. Components of closure are not clearly marked and installation instructions/ procedures are not readily available. 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 FOR segment I system.
Slope Stability A No slides, sloughs, tension cracking, slope depressions, or bulges are present. At one location the waterside toe has been undercut by a M Minor slope stability problems that do not pose an immediate threat to the levee embankment pedestrian footpath for approximately 100 feet. The undercut toe should be restored.
Major slope stability problems (ex. deep seated sliding) identified that must be repaired to reestablish the integrity of the levee embankment. At another location, a small slump was observed on the waterside slope. This area should be monitored for further M movement.
u At one location on AR28 there is pond, approximately 400 feet by I 00 feet below the waterside toe.
Slope Stability was rated Minimally Acceptable due to the pond at the waterside toe. The pond should be drained and filled with compacted soiL
Erosion/ Bank A No erosion or bank caving is observed on the landward or riverward sides of the levee that In most cases the erosion is less than 6 inches deep. There Caving might endanger its stability. were a few locations where the erosion was up to 18 inches There are areas where minor erosion is occurring or has occurred on or near the levee deep. The erosion may be indicative of poorly compacted A M embankment, but levee integrity is not threatened. fill as well as sparse ground cover.
Erosion or caving is occurring or has occurred that threatens the stability and integrity of the u levee. The erosion or caving has progressed into the levee section or into the extended footprint of the levee foundation and has compromised the levee foundation stability.
Serrlement2 No observed depressions in crown. Records exist and indicate no unexplained historical A changes.
A M Minor irregularities that do not threaten integrity of levee. Records are incomplete or inclusive.
u Obvious variations in elevation over significant reaches. No records exist or records indicate that design elevation is compromised.
Key: A= Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U =Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction """ lli:lil
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
I
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations
8. Depressions/ There are scattered, shallow ruts, pot holes, or other depressions on the levee that are Runing A unre lated to levee settlement. The levee crown, embankments, and access road crowns are we ll established and drain properly without any ponded wa te r.
A There are some infrequent minor depressions less than 6 inches deep in the levee crown , M embankment, or access roads that will pond water. u T here are depressions greater than 6 inches deep that wi ll pond water.
9. Cracking A
Minor longitudinaL transverse, or desiccation cracks with no verti cal movement along the crack. No cracks extend continuously through the levee crest.
Longitudinal and/or transverse cracks up to 6 inches in depth with no vertical movement along A M the crack. No cracks extend continuously through the levee crest. Longitudinal cracks are no longer than the height of the levee.
Cracks exceed 6 inches in depth. Longitudinal cracks are longer than the height of the levee u and/or exhibit vertical movement along the crack. Transverse cracks extend through the entire levee width .
10. Animal Control A
Continuous anima l burrow control program in place that includes the elimination of active Animcal Control received a Minimally Acceptable rating burrowing and the filling in of existing burrows. because numerous rodent holes were observed in the levee.
The existing animal burrow control program needs to be improved. Several burrows are The sponsor indicated that they maintain an active animal M present which may lead tO seepage or slope stability problems, and they require immediate control program which includes flagging active rodent holes, M attention. baiting rodents, and grouting burrows. However, numerous Animal burrow control program is not effective or is nonexistent. Significant maintenance is un-flagged, un-grouted, active rodent holes were still
observed on the levee slopes during the levee inspection, u required to fill existing burrows, and the levee will not provide reliable flood protection until indicating a more acti ve animal control program is required. this maintenance is complete.
ll. Culverts! There are no breaks, holes, cracks in the discharge pipes/ culverts that would result in Discharge Pipes 3 significant water leakage. The pipe shape is still essentially circular. All joints appear to be (This item closed and the soi l ti ght. Corrugated metal pipes, if present, are in good condition with 100% includes both A of the original coating still in place (either asphalt or galvanizing) or have been relined with concrete and appropri ate material, which is still in good condition. Condition of pipes has been verified corrugated metal using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the past five years, pipes.) and the report fo r eve ry pipe is available for review by the inspector.
NA There are a small number of corrosion pinholes or cracks that could leak water and need to be repaired, but the entire length of pipe is still structurally sound and is not in danger of collapsing. Pipe shape may be ovalized in some locations but does not appear to be approaching a curvature reversal. A limited number of joints may have opened and so il loss M may be beginning. Any open joints should be repaired prior to the next inspection.
Corrugated meta l pipes, if present, may be showing corrosion and pinholes but there are no areas with total section loss. Condition of pipes has been verified using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the past five years, and the report fo r every pipe is avai lable for review by the inspector.
Key: A = Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptab le. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = f lood Damage Reduction """ ~ US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
12. 13 .
14. (
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating _~ - - -~- ~ Location/Remarks/Recommendations Culvert has deterioration and/or has significant leakage; it is in dange r of collapsing or as already begun to collapse. Corrugated metal pipes have suffered I 00% section loss in the u invert. HOWEVER: Even if pipes appear to be in good condition, as judged by an extemal visual inspec ti on, an Unacceptable Rating will be assigned if the conditi on of pipes has not been verified using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the past five years, and reports fo r all pipes are not ava ilable for review by the inspector.
N/A There are no discharge pipes/ culverts.
Riprap A No riprap displacement or stone degradation that could pose an immediate threat to the Revetments & integrity of channel bank. Riprap intact with no woody vegetation present.
Bank Protection Minor riprap displacement or stone degradation that could pose an immediate threat to the M integrity of the channel bank. Unwanted vegetation must be cleared or sprayed with an NA appropriate herbicide.
Sign ificant riprap disp lacement, exposure of bedding, or stone degradation observed. Scour u activity is undercutting banks, eroding embankments, or impairing channel nows by causing turbulence or shoaling. Rock protection is hidden by dense brush, trees, or grasses.
N/A There is no riprap protecting this feature of the segment I system, or riprap is discussed in another section.
Revetments other A Existing revetment protection is properly maintained, undamaged, and clearly visi bl e. than Riprap Minor revetment displacement or deterioration that does not pose an immediate threat to the M integrity of the levee. Unwanted vegetation must be cleared or sprayed with an appropriate NA herbicide.
Sign ificant revem1ent displacement, deterioration. or exposure of bedding observed. Scour u acti vity is undercutting banks, eroding embankments, or impairing channel nows by causing turbul ence or shoaling. Revetment protection is hidden by dense brush and trees.
N/A There are no such revetments protecting this feature of the segment I system.
U nderseepage Toe drainage systems and pressure relief we lls necessary for maintaining FDR segment I Relief Wells/ Toe system stability during high water functioned properly during the last nood event and no Drainage Systems A sediment is observed in horizontal system (if applicable). Nothing is observed which would indicate that the drainage syst~ms won't func tion properly during the next nood, and NA maintenance records indicate regular cleaning. Wells have been pumped tested within the past 5 years and documentation is provided.
Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells are damaged and may become clogged if they M are not repaired. Maintenance records are incomplete or indicate irregular cleaning and pump testing.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U =Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction """ lil:lll
US Am1y Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
J
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FDR segment I u system stability during flood events have fallen into disrepair or have become clogged. No maintenance records. No documentation of the required pump testing.
N/A
There are no relief wel ls/ toe drainage systems along this component of the FDR segment I system.
15. Seepage A No evidence or history of unrepaired seepage, saturated areas, or boils.
A M Evidence or history of minor unrepaired seepage or small saturated areas at or beyond the lands ide toe but not on the landward slope of levee. No evidence of soil transport. u Evidence or history of active seepage, extensive saturated areas, or boils. 1 If there is significant growth on the levee that inhibits the inspection of animal burrows or other items, the inspection should be ended until this item is corrected. 2 Detailed survey elevations are normally required during Periodic Inspections, and whenever there are obvious visual settlements. 3 The decision on whether or not USACE inspectors should enter a pipe to perfonn a detailed inspection must be made at the USACE District level. This decision should be made in conjunction with the District Safety Office, as pipes may be considered confined spaces. This decision should consider the age of the pipe. the diameter of the pipe, the apparent condition of the pipe, and the length of the pipe. !f a pipe is entered for the purposes of inspection, the inspector should record observations with a video camera in order that the condition of the entire pipe, including all joints, can later be assessed. Additionally, the video record provides a baseline to which future inspections can be compared.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FOR= flood Damage Reduction r.lll'l
lli:ill
US Am1y Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' lil:ill
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009_a_0066 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR2B_2009_a_0066_2.jpg Caption: Typical geometry: flood control embankment is on waterside railroad embankment; note the abandoned utility pole in the background.
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009 _a_0053 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR2B_2009 _a_0053_1.jpg Caption: Typical geometry: levee waterside slope and crown; pipe in foreground is related to an adjacent gas field; the pipe is likely connected to a pressure relief valve.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """ Li:lll
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR28_2009 _a_0061 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009 _a_006!_2.jpg Caption: Typical geometry: levee Jandside slope with railroad embankment Inspect ID: AR28_2009_a_0085 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009_a_0085_1.jpg Caption: Pond below waterside toe (southern extent of pond).
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' lii:lil
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR28_2009_a_0085 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009_a_0085_2.jpg Caption: Pond below waterside toe (center of pond).
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009 _a_0085 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR2B_2009 _a_0085_3.jpg Caption: Pond below waterside toe (northern extent of pond).
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.!ll'l
llil:ill
US Army COJ1lS
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009 _a_0076 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR2B_2009 _a_0076_l.jpg Caption: Minor erosion on waterside slope due to foot and bicycle traffic.
Inspect ID: AR28_2009_a_0079 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR2B_2009_a_0079_l.jpg Caption: Rilling on landside slope due to runoff.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.'llr.ll
lli:iil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009_a_0036 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009 _a_0036_1.jpg Caption: Cobble and shotcrete-lined drainage ditch with ponded water on waterside toe patrol road.
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009 _a_0074 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009 _a_0074_1.jpg Caption: Rodent hole on waterside slope, approximately 3 inches in diameter.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
J nspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' lll;ill
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR28_2009 _a_OOOl Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009 _a_OOOl_l.jpg Caption: Rodent holes on landside slope up to 6 inches in diameter.
Inspect ID: AR28_2009 _a_0057 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009 _a_0057 _l.jpg Caption: Tall brush on waterside slope near Union Pacific Railroad bridge.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Page II of20
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.'llfl
~ US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR28_2009 _a_0062 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009 _a_0062_2.jpg Caption: Large trees on landside railroad embankment.
Inspect ID: AR28_2009 _a_0068 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR2B_2009 _a_006 8_2 .jpg Caption: Large trees and brush on landside railroad embankment.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.tlfl
lll;ill
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR28_2009_a_0027 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009_a_0027_1.jpg Caption: Large trees within 15 feet of waterside levee toe.
Inspect ID: AR28 _2009_a_0021 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009_a_002l_I.Jpg Caption: Typical conditions for sod cover on lands ide slope above railroad embankment.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' lll:ill
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR2B _ 2009 _a_ 0010 Name: US ACE_ CESPK _ AR2B _ 2009 _a_ 001 0 _l.jpg Caption: Arden-Garden Connector Bridge
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009_a_0044 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR2B_2009_a_0044_3.jpg Caption: West El Camino Avenue Bridge
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems "" IIIU
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR28_2009 _a_0043 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009 _a_0043_l.jpg Caption: ARFCD access pipe gate near West El Camino Bridge.
Inspect ID: AR28_2009_a_0055 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009_a_0055_1.jpg Caption: ARFCD access pipe gate near Union Pacific Railroad bridge.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' lli:lil
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009_a_0014 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009_a_0014_l.jpg Caption: Abandoned utility poles near base of railroad embankment.
Inspect JD: AR28_2009_a_0066 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009_a_0066_l.jpg Caption: Abandoned utility poles near base of railroad embankment.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """' lli&ill
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR28_2009_a_0005 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR2B_2009_a_0005_Ljpg Caption: Fence line installed within 15 feet of lands ide toe; fire hydrant located within pushed-out fence line.
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009_a_0006 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009_a_0006_ 1.jpg Caption: Fence line installed within I 5 feet of lands ide toe; fire hydrant located within pushed-out fence line.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.llr.ll
lii:lil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009 _a_0026 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR2B_2009 _a_0026_J.jpg Caption: Typical conditions for southem 0.3 miles of AR2B: asphalt-paved bike/pedestrian trail on levee crest.
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009 _a_0049 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR2B_2009 _a_0049 _l.jpg Caption: Two manholes marked "Pac Bell Fiber Optic".
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """ lli&lil
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009 _a_0032 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR2B_2009 _a_0032_l.Jpg Caption: Emergency call box on crest near bike/ped path.
Inspect ID: AR2B_2009 _a_0053 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR28_2009_a_0053_2jpg Caption: Marker indicating natural gas pipelines under or with in levee.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' lli:iil
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
InspectiD: AR2B_2009_a_0052 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR2B_2009_a_0052_1.jpg Caption: Monitoring well covers on levee crest.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
1 nspection Report
Levee Embankments
I
2. 3.
4. Floodwalls
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of all floodwalls Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Unwanted A grass-only or paved zone is maintained on both sides of the flood wa ll, free of all trees.
Vegetation brush, and undesirable weeds. The vegetation-free zone extends 15 feet from both the land Growth' and riverside of the flood wall, at ground-level, to the centerli ne of the tree. Additionally, an 8- A foot root-free zone is maintained around the entire structure, including the floodwall toe, heel, and any toe-drains. If the floodwall access easement doesn't extend to the desc ribed limits, then the vegetation-free zone must be maintained to the easememlimits. Reference EM Ill 0- A 2-301 and/or Corps policy for regional vegetation variance.
Minimal vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or trees 2 inches in diameter or smaller) is present M within the zones described above. This vegetation must be removed but does not currentl y threaten the operation or integrity of the floodwall.
Significant vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or any trees greater than 2 inches in diameter) is u present within the zones described above. This vegetation threatens the operation or integrity of the floodwall and must be removed.
Encroachments No trash, debris. unauthori zed structures, excavations, or other obstructions presem within the A easement area. Encroachments have been previously reviewed by the Corps, and it wa s determined that they do not diminish proper functioni ng of the fl oodwall.
A Trash, debris. unauthori zed structures, excavations, or other obstructions present, or M inappropri ate activities noted that should be corrected but will not inhibit operations and maintenance or emergency operations. Encroachments have not been reviewed by the Corps. u Unauthorized encroachments or inappropriate activities noted are likely to inhibit operations and maintenance, emergency operations, or negatively impact the integrity of the floodwall.
Closure Structures Closure structure in good repair. Placing equipment, stoplogs, and other materials are readily (Stop Log A available at all times. Components are clearly marked and installation instructions/ Closures and procedures readily available. Trial erections have been accomplished in accordance with the Gates) O&M Manual.
(A or U only) Any of the following issues is cause for this rating: Closure structure in poor conditi on. Parts A missing or corroded. Placing equipment may not be available within the anticipated waming u time. The storage vaults cannot be opened during the time of inspection. Components of closure are not clearly marked and install ation instructions/ procedures are not readily available. 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.
Concrete Surfaces Negligible spalling, scaling or cracking. If the conc rete surface is weathered or holds A moisture, it is sti ll satisfactory but should be seal coated to prevent freeze/ thaw damage.
A Spalling, scaling, and open cracking present, but the immediate integrity or performance of M th.: strucrure is not threatened. Reinforcing steel may be exposed. Repairs/ sealing is necessary to prevent additiona l damage during peri ods of thawing and freezing.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is req uired. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction r.lllr.l
lli:.llll
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Flood walls
Page I of 3
·~
5. 6.
7 (
Flood walls
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of all floodwalls Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Surface deterioration or deep cracks present that may result in an unreliable structure. Any u surface deterioration that exposes the sheet piling or lies adjacent to monolith joints may indicate underlying reinforcement corrosion and is unacceptable.
Tilting, Sliding or A
There are no significant areas of tilting, sliding, or settlement that would endanger the Settlement of integrity of the structure.
Conc rete There are areas of tilting, sliding, or settlement (either active or inactive) that need to be Structures2
repaired. The maximum offset, ei ther laterally or venical\y, does not exceed 2 inches unless M the movement can be shown to be no longer active ly occurring. The integrity of the structure is not in danger.
A There are areas of tilting, sliding, or settlement (either active or inactive) that threaten the structure's integrity and perfom1ance. Any movement that has result ed in failure of the waters top (possibly identified by daylight visible through the joint) is unacceptable. u
Differential movement of greater than 2 inches between any two adjacent monoliths, either laterally or venically, is unacceptable unless it can be shown that the movement is no longer active. Also, if the floodwall is ofl-wall construction, then any visible or measurable tilting of the wall toward the protected side that has created an open horizontal crack on the riverside base of a monolith is unacceptable.
Foundation of A No active erosion, scouring, or bank caving that might endanger the structure's stability.
Concrete
Structures 1 There are areas where the ground is eroding towards the base of the structure. Efforts need to be taken to slow and repair this erosion, but it is not judged to be close enough to the structure or to be progressing rapidly enough to affect structural stability before the next inspection.
M For the purposes of inspection, the erosion or scour is not closer ro the riverside face of the wall than twice the floodwall's underground base width if the wall is of L-wall or T-wall A construction; or if the wall is ofsheetpile or !-wall construction, the erosion is not closer than twice the wall's visible height. Additionally, rate of erosion is such that the wall is expected to remain stabile until the next inspection.
Erosion or bank caving observed that is closer to the wall than the limits described above, or is outside these limits but may lead to structural instabilities before the next inspection. u Additionally, if the floodwa11 is ofl-wa11 or sheetpile construction, the foundation is unacceptable if any turf, soil or pavement material got washed away from the Jandside of the l-wa11 as the result of a previous overtopping event
Monolith Joints The joint material is in good condition. The exterior joint sea lant is intact and cracking/ A desiccation is minimal. Joint filler material and/or waterstop is not visible at any point.
A The joint material has appreciable deterioration to the point where joint fi11er material and/or M waterstop is visible in some locations. This needs to be repaired or replaced to prevent spa I ling and cracking during freeze/ thaw cycles, and to ensure water tightness of the joint.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction ~
lliUI
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Floodwalls
8. 9.
Floodwalls
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of all floodwalls Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations The joint material is severel y deteriorated or the conc rete adjacent to the monolith joints has u spa lied and cracked. damaging the waterstop; in either case damage has occurred to the point where it is apparent that the joint is no longer watertight and will not provide the intended level of protection during a flood.
N/A There are no monolith joints in the floodwall .
Underseepage Toe drainage systems and pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FOR segment I Relief Wells/ Toe system stability during high water functioned properly during the last flood event and no Drainage Systems A sediment is observed in horizontal system (if applicable). Nothing is observed which would indicate that the drainage systems won't function properly during the next flood, and maintenance records indicate regular cleaning. Wells ha ve been pumped tested within the past 5 years and documentation is provided.
NA
Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells are damaged and may become clogged if they M are not repaired. Maintenance records are incomplete or indicate irregular cleaning and pump testing.
Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FOR segment I u system stability during flood events have fallen into disrepair or have become clogged. No maintenance records. No documentation of the required pump testing.
N/A There are no relief wells/ toe drainage systems along this component of the FOR segment I system.
Seepage A No evidence or history of umepaired seepage, saturated areas, or boils.
Evidence or history of minor umepaired seepage or small saturated areas at or beyond the A M landside toe but not on the landward slope of levee. No evidence of soil transport. u Evidence or history of active seepage, extensive saturated areas, or boils. 1 Inspectors must have as-built drawings available during the inspection so that the lateral distance to the heel and toe of the flood walls can be detem1ined in the field. 2 The sponsor should be monitoring any observed movement to verify whether the movement is active or inactive.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FOR= Flood Damage Reduction """ lliUI
US Am1y Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Flood walls
Unit 2, South NEMDC below Arcade Creek i
Inspect ID Feature Easting_ 1
USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0027 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4705 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0057 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4677 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0059 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4670 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0062 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4676 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0063 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4669 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0064 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4668 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0065 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4666 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0068 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4664 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0069 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4675 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0081 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4725 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0082 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4708 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0022 3. Encroachments -121.4664 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0058 3. Encroachments -121.4667 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0031 3. Encroachments -121.4685 USAGE CESPK AR2B 2009 a 0048 3. Encroachments -121.4663 Note: This is not an all inclusive list of unacceptable rated items and should be used as a means to identify similar issues within the levee segment.
Northing_ 1
38.6044
38.6193
38.6089
38.6067
38.6085
38.6091
38.6100
38.6117
38.6187
38.6032
38.6042
38.6126
38.6098
38.6056
38.6112
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Supplemental Data Sheet
This form is intended for the Corps' internal use and may not need to be updated with every inspection.
Name of Segment I System:
Sponsor:
Location:
River Basin:
Project Descripti on:
Authority that Project was Constructed Under:
Date of Construction:
Approximate Annual Maintenance Costs:
Construction:
Maintenance:
~ Federal ly Constructed
0 Federally Maintained
National Flood Insurance Program:
a. Is the project currently N FIP? ~ yes D No
b. I fin the NFIP, Date of Certification (per 44 CFR 65. 10):
Datum Information:
a. Datum used for the design and construction of this proj ect is:
b. Current recommended datum for this project is:
0 Non-Federall y Constructed
~ Non-Federally Maintained
c. Has the Project been converted to the current recommended datum? D Yes I2J No Levee Embankment Data:
a. Levee Designed Gage Function Reading/Station:
b. Level of Protection Provided:
c. Average Height of Levee:
d. Average Crown Width:
e.
f'lllr.l
llli:iil
Average Side Slope:
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Protected Features (For use in preparing estimates and PIRs):
a. Total acres protected:
b. Total agriculture production acres protected:
c. Towns:
d. Businesses:
e. Residences:
f. Roads:
g. Utilities:
h. Barns:
i. Machine Sheds:
j. Outbuildings:
k. Irrigation Systems:
I. Grain Bins:
m. Other Facilities:
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Supplemental Data Sheet
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Name of Segment I System: ARFCD- Unit 3, American R right bank (AR03) 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: 12130/2009
Inspection Report Prepared By: EdMak Date Report Prepared: 2118120 I 0 Internal Technical Review (for Periodic Inspections) By: R. Kevin Tillis Date of ITR: 2/23/20 I 0 -------------------------------------------- --------------- Final Approved By: Michael Mahoney Date Approved: 5/19/2010 Type oflnspection:
Contents of Report:
D Initial Eligibility Inspection
n Continuing Eligibility Inspection (Routine)
~ Continuing Eligibility Inspection (Periodic)
~ Instructions
D Initial Eligibility Inspection
~ General Items for All Flood Control Works
~ Levee Embankment
D Concrete Floodwalls
D Sheet Pile and Concrete I-walls
n Interior Drainage System
D Pump Stations
D FDR System Channels
-----------------
Overall Segment I System Rating: D Acceptable
[X] Minimally Acceptable
D Unacceptable
Note: ln 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 NFlP 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 fo llowing 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 I evee d. 1stnct h I I . to manage t e evee segment system mamtenance program.
I. Levee segment I system and district: (name of the segment I system and levee district) ARFCD- Unit3, American R right bank (AR03) 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:ii.ll
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Pre-Inspection Form
Page I of 2
Public Sponsor Pre-Inspection Report
The following information is to be provided by the levee district sponsor prior to an inspection
8. Levee district organi7.ation:
Name
Tim Kerr
Richard Marek
Karolyn W. Simon
Brian F. Holloway
Bettina C. Redway
Virginia G. Moose
Derek W. Mirmema
lr.l"'''
lliliil
US Almy Corps
of Engineers®
(elected or a ppointed levee district officials and key employees) Position
General Manager
Superintendent
President
Vice President
Trustee
Treasurer
Secretary
Mailing Address
165 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 95815
165 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 958 15
165 Commerce Circle, Suite D, Sacramento, CA 958 15
165 Commerce Circle, Suite D, Sacramento, CA 958 15
165 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 958 15
165 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 95815
165 Commerce Circ le, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 958 15
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Phone Number
(916) 929-4006
(9 16) 929-4006
(9 16) 929-4006
(9 16)447-0284
(9 16) 929-4006
(9 16) 929-4006
(9 16) 929-4006
Email Address
tk err@a rfcd. org
richard@arfcd .org
garli cgi nger@comcast .net
vgmoose(a;aol.com
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 value of Federal investments, and to encourage non-Federal sponsors to bear responsibility for their own protection. Inspections should assure that Flood Damage Reduction structures and facilities are continually maintained and operated as necessary to obtain the maximum benefits. Inspections are also conducted to determine eligibility for Rehabilitation Assistance under authority of PL 84-99 for Federal and non-Federal systems. (ER 1130-2-530, ER 500- 1- 1) 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 Inspections
lEis are conducted to dete1mine whether a non- R Is are intended to verifY proper Pis are intended to verifY proper maintenance and component operation and to evaluate operationa l adequacy, Federally constructed Flood Damage Reduction maintenance, owner strucrural stability, and safety of the system. Periodic Inspections evaluate the system's original design criteria system meets the minimum criteri a and standards set preparedness, and component vs. current design criteria to determine potential performance impacts, evaluate the current conditions, and fonh 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 Inspection Program. identifY components and fearures 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 rating 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 flood damage A flood damage reduction segment is defined as a discrete or more fl ood damage reduction systems whi ch were reduction segments which collecti vely provide flood damage reduction to a ponion of a flood damage reduction system that is operated and under the same authorization. defined area. Failure of one segment within a system constirutes 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, flood wall, pump stations, etc).
D. Land Use Definitions:
The following three defi nitions are intended for use in determining 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 failure regardless of specific land use.
Agricultural
Protected population in the range of zero to 5
households per square mile protected.
~
lli:lil
US Army Corps
of Engineers"
Rural Urban
Protected population in the range Greater than 20 households per square mile; major industrial areas with significant infrastructure investment. of 6 to 20 households per square Some protected urban areas have no permanent population but may be industrial areas with high value mile protected. infrastructure with no ovemight population.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
General Instructions
Page I of3
..
E. Use of the Inspection Report Template:
TI1 e repon template is intended for use in all Anny Corps of Engi neers inspections of levee and flood wa ll systems and fl ood damage reduction channels. The section of the template labeled ··In itia l Eligibility" on ly needs to be completed during Initia l 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 sec tion labeled "Public Sponsor Pre-Inspection Repon" 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 criteria provided in the inspection repon template, though inspectors may incorporate additional items into th e repon based on the characteristics of the system. The assessment of individual components should be based on the following definitions.
Acceptable Item Minimally Acceptable Item Unacceptable Item The inspected item is in satisfactory condition, with The inspected item has one or more minor defici encies that need to be The inspected item has one or more serious deficiencies that no deficiencies, and will function as intended during corrected. The minor deficiency or deficiencies will not seriously impair the need to be corrected. The serious deficiency or defici encies will the next flood 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:
Detem1ination of th<: overa ll system rating is based on the detlnitions below. Note that an Unacceptable System Rating may be either based on an engineering detem1ination that concluded that noted deficiencies would prevent the system !Tom functi oning as intended during the next fl ood event, or based on the sponsor's demonstrated lack of commitment or inability to correc t serious defic iencies in a timely manner.
Acceptable System Minimally Acceptable System Unacceptable System All 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 an d an engineering determination concludes that the the segment I system !Tom performing 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. resu lted in a minimally 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 (RIP) and eligible for rehabilitation assistance from the Corps as defined below:
If the Overall System Rating is Acceptable
The system is acti ve in the RIP and eli gible for
PL84-99 rehabilitati on assistance.
"""' Ll:ill
US Army Corps
of Engineers'"
If the Overall System Rating is Minimally Acceptable
The system is Acti ve 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 seri ous deficiencies (which had previously resulted in a minimally acceptable system rating) were corrected within the established timeframe, then th e system wi ll become l.n active in the RIP.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
If the Overall System Rating is Unacceptable
The system is Inacti ve in the RIP, and the status wi ll remai n J.n acti ve until the sponsor presents USACE with proof that a ll items rated Unacceptable ha ve been corrected. l.nactive 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 report 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 importance of the identified maintenance issues should be specified in the transmittal 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 cmTected within the required timeframe, th e 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.
~
lii:ill
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
If the Overall System Rating is Minimally Acceptable
Reports need to be provided to the local sponsor, state emergency management agency, county emergency management agency, and to the FEMA 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 Congressional delegation within 30 days of the inspection.
General Instructions
I.
2. 3.
General Items for All Flood Damage Reduction Segments I Systems For use during aU inspections of all Flood Damage Reduction Segments I Systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines
Operations and Levee Owner's Manual, O&M Manuals, and/or manufacrurcr'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 suppl ies 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 understanding of how to Preparedness and A operate, maintain, and staff the FOR system during a flood . Sponsor maintains a list of Training emergency contact informati on 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 installation of cutoff walls and construction and abandoning of pump stations.
Key: A = Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. NIA = Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction ~
a.:.~
US Anny 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 Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Unwanted The levee has little or no unwanted vegetation (trees, bush, or undesirable weeds), except for On the Jandside, at and beyond the levee toe, there are many Vegetation vegetation that is properly contained and/or situated on overbuilt sections, such that the trees within I 5 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 generally up to about 24 inches in diameter, with the A recently mowed. The vegetation-free zone extends 15 feet from both the lands ide and largest trees up to about 36 inches in diameter. Many of riverside toes of the levee to the cente rline of the tree. If the levee access easement doesn't these !Tees are behind fences for private parcels. extend to the described limits, then the vegetation-free zone must be maintained to the easement limits. Reference EM 1 I 10-2-30 I or Corps policy for regional vegetation variance. Near the Cal Expo there are several trees up 10 about 24 Minimal vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or trees 2 inches in diameter or smaller) is present inches diameter on the Jandside slope, on the levee side of M within the zones described above. This vegetation must be removed but does not currently the property fence I in e. threaten the operation or integrity of the levee. At one location there are remnant stumps of trees which Significant vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or any trees greater than 2 inches in diameter) is have been removed. The stumps are about 56 inches in present within the zones described above and must to be removed to reestablish or ascertain diameter and arc located ncar the waterside toe. levee integrity.
Near the Cal Expo, there are severa l trees and bushes on the u waterside slope and on the waterside at and beyond the levee toe. These trees are up to about 24 inches in diameter.
During the periodic inspection, in some areas, the grass was up to 18 inches tall.
u The levee segment was rated Unacceptable for Unwanted Vegetation Growth primarily due to the presence of trees and brush on the landside and waterside slopes and remnant stumps at the waterside toe . Large trees may be blown over during wind stom1s, causing significant damage to the levee embankment. Heavy brush hinders proper inspection of the levee slope surface. Remnant tree roots will eventuall y die and rot, leaving voids within the levee embankment and
increasing seepage. Large trees, 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 """ lli:ill
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. ,.
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Locatioo!Remarks!Recommendatioos Encroachments No trash, debris, unauthorized farming activity. structures, excavations, or other obstructions The levee segment was rated Unacceptable for A present within the easement area. Encroachments have been previously reviewed by the Encroachments primarily because there are several locations Corps, and it was determined that they do not diminish proper functioning of the levee. where fence lines encroach upon the landside slope and toe.
Trash, debris, unauthori zed fam1ing activity, structures, excavations, or othe r obstructions There are also numerous other encroachments, many of u M present. or inappropri ate activities noted that should be corrected but will not inhibit which may not be perrnined. These encroachment are operations and maintenance or emergency operations. Encroachments have not been reviewed by the Corps. unlikely to inhibit ope rations and maintenance of the levee.
Unauthorized encroachments or inappropriate activities noted are likely to inhibit operations The condition of the discharge pipes have not been verified u and maintenance, emergency operations, or negatively impact the integrity of the levee. using television camera video recordings or visual inspection methods within the last five years.
Closure Structures Closure structure in good repair. Placing equipment. stoplogs, and other materials are readily (Stop Log. A
available at all times. Components are clearly marked and insta ll ation instructions/ Earthen C losures, procedures readily ava il able. Tri al erections have been accomplished in accordance 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 available. Trial erections have not been accomplished in accordance with the O&M Manual.
N/A
There are no closure structu res along this component of the FOR segrnem/ 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 stability 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 riverward sides of the levee that Caving might endanger its stability.
M There are areas where minor erosion is occurring or has occurred on or near the levee A embankment, but levee integrity is not threatened.
Erosion or caving is occurring or has occurred that threatens the stability and integrity of the u levee. The erosion or caving has progressed into the levee section or into the extended footprint of the levee foundation and has compromised the levee foundati on stability.
Settlement' No observed depressions in crown. Records exist and indicate no unexplained historical A changes.
A
M Minor irregularities that do not threaten integrity of levee. Records are incomplete or inclusive.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction ""' lli:lil
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations u Obvious variations in elevation over sign ificant reaches. No records exist or records indicate that design elevation is compromised.
8. Depressions/ There are scattered, shallow ruts, pot holes, or other depressions on the levee that are Rutting A unrelated to levee settlement. The levee crown, embankments, and access road crowns are well established and drain properly without any ponded water.
A There are some infrequent minor depressions Jess than 6 inches deep in the levee crown, M embankment, or access roads that wil l pond water. u There are depressions greater than 6 inches deep that will pond water.
9. Crack ing A Minor longitudinal, transverse, or desiccation cracks with no vertical movement along the crack. No cracks extend continuously thro ugh the levee crest.
Longitudinal and/or transverse c racks up to 6 inches in depth with no vertica l movement a long A M the crack. No cracks extend continuously through the levee crest. Longitudinal cracks are no longer than the height of the levee.
Cracks exceed 6 inches in depth. Longitudinal cracks are longer than the height of the levee u and/or exh ibit vertical movement along the crack. Transverse cracks extend through the entire levee width:
10. Animal Control A Continuous animal burrow control program in place that includes the elimination of active Animal Control received a Minima lly Acceptable rating burrowing and the filling in of existing burrows. mainly because rodent holes were observed on the levee The existing anima l burrow control program needs to be improved. Several burrows are slopes at the time of inspection. Numerous rodent holes M present whi ch may lead to seepage or slope stability problems, and they require immediate were observed along both the lands ide and waterside levee anention. slopes. Sizes ranged from 3 inc hes in diameter up to 8 Animal burrow control program is not effective or is nonexistent. Significant maintenance is inches in diameter. The sponsor indicated that they maintain M an active animal control program which includes flagging required to fill existing burrows, and the levee will not provide reliable flood protection until active rodent holes, baiting rodents, and grouting burrows. this maintenance is complete. The animal control program appeared active, with numerous u yellow flags marking rodent holes for filling and a number of rodent holes a lready grouted. Howeve r, numerous unflagged acti ve rodent holes were observed on the levee slopes, indicating a more acti ve animal control program is required.
ll Culverts/ There are no breaks, holes, cracks in the discharge pipes/ culverts that would result in Discharge Pipes-' significant water leakage. The pipe shape is still essentially circular. All joints appear to be (This item closed and the soi l tight. Corrugated metal pipes, if present, are in good condition with 100% includes both NA A of the original coating stil l in place (either asphalt or galvaniz ing) or have been relined with concrete and appropriate material, which is sti ll in good condition. Condition of pipes has been verified corrugated metal using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the past five years, pipes.) and the report for eve ry pipe is available for review by the inspector.
Key: A= Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR =flood Damage Reduction ""' lli;iil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
12. \3.
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location!Remarks/Recommendations There are a small number of corrosion pinholes or cracks that could leak water and need to be repaired, but the entire length of pipe is still structurally sound and is not in danger of collapsing. Pipe shape may be ovalized in some locations but does not appear to be approaching a curvature reversal. A limited number of joints may have opened and soil loss M may be beginning. Any open joints should be repaired prior to the next inspection.
Corrugated metal pipes, if present, may be showing corrosion and pinholes but there are no areas with total section loss. Condition of pipes has been verified using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the past five years, and the repon for every pipe is available for review by the inspector.
Culvert has deterioration and/or has significant leakage; it is in danger of collapsing or as already begun to collapse. Corrugated mGtal pipes have suffered 100% section loss in the u invert. HOWEVER: Even if pipes appear to be in good condition, as judged by an external visual inspection, an Unacceptable Rating wi ll be assigned if the condition of pipes has not been verified using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the past fi ve years, and reports for all pipes are not available for review by the inspector.
N/A There are no discharge pipes/ culverts.
Riprap No riprap displacement or stone degradation that could pose an immediate threat to the Revetments & A integrity of channel bank. Riprap intact with no woody vegetation present.
Bank Protection Minor riprap displacement or stone degradation that could pose an immediate threat to the M integrity of the channel bank. Unwanted vegetation must be cleared or sprayed with an NA appropriate herbicide.
Significant riprap displacement, exposure of bedding, or stone degradation observed. Scour u activity is undercutting banks, eroding embankments, or impairing channel flows by causing turbulence or shoaling. Rock protection is hidden by dense brush, trees, or grasses.
NlA There is no riprap protecting this feature of the segment I system, or riprap is disc ussed in another section.
Revetments other A Existing revetment protection is properly maintained, undamaged, and clearly visible. than Riprap - Minor revetment displacement or deterioration that does not pose an immediate threat to the M integrity of the levee. Unwanted vegetation must be cleared or sprayed with an appropriate herbicide. -
NA Significant revetment displacement, deterioration, or exposure of bedding observed. Scour u activity is undercutting banks, eroding embankments, or impairing channel flows by causing turbulence or shoaling. Revetment protection is hidden by dense brush and trees. - N/A There are no such revetments protecting this fea ture of the segment I system.
Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction "'-~
lii:iil
US Arrny Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations
14. Underseepage Toe drainage systems and pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FDR segment I Relief Wells/ Toe system stabiliry during high water functioned properly during the last flood event and no Drainage Systems A sediment is observed in horizontal system (if applicable). Nothing is observed which would indicate that the drainage systems won't function properly during the next flood, and maintenance records indicate regular cleaning. Wells have been pumped tested within the past 5 years and documentation is provided.
NA
Toe drainage systems or pressure reli ef wells are damaged and may become clogged if they M are not repaired. Maintenance records are incomplete or indicate irregular cleaning and pump testing.
Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FDR segment I u system stability during flood events have fallen into disrepair or have become clogged. No maintenance records. No documentation of the required pump testing. lA There are no relief wells/ toe drainage systems along this component of the FDR segment I system.
15. Seepage A No evidence or history of unrepaired seepage, saturated areas, or boils.
A M Evidence or history of minor unrepaired seepage or small saturated areas at or beyond the \andside toe but not on the landward slope of levee. No evidence of soil rranspon. u Evidence or history of active seepage, extensive saturated areas, or boils. 1 If there is significant growth on the levee that inhibits the inspection of animal burrows or other items, the inspection should be ended until this item is corrected. 2 Detailed survey elevations are nonnally required during Periodic Inspections, and whenever there are obvious visual settlements. 3 The decision on whether or not USACE inspectors should enter a pipe to perfonn a detailed inspection must be made at the USACE District leveL This decision should be made in conjunction with the District Safety Office, as pipes may be considered confined spaces. This decision should consider the age of the pipe, the diameter of the pipe, the apparent condition of the pipe, and the length of the pipe. !fa pipe is entered for the purposes of inspection, the inspector should record observations with a video camera in order that the condition of the entire pipe, including all joints, can later be assessed. Additionally, the video record provides a baseline to which future inspections can be compared.
Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction r.lll'l
lli:iil
US Arrny Corps
of Engineers
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' lli:ill
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR03_2009_a_Ol09 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009_a_OI09_l.jpg Caption: Typical waterside geometry with asphalt paved bike trail at waterside toe. lnspectiD: AR03_2009_a_0058 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009_a_0058Jjpg Caption: Minor erosion at Jandside toe. Near Lathrop Way and 1-80 Business.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems "" ~ US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR03_2009 _a_00!7 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_0017 _2.jpg Caption: Rodent holes marked with yellow flags for filling.
Inspect ID: AR03_2009 _a_003 5 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_0035_1.jpg Caption: Numerous rodent holes on landside slope.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """ lliUI
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR03_2009 _a_0036 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_0036_J.jpg Caption: Large, active rodent hole on landside slope.
Inspect ID: AR03_2009_a_0076 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009_a_0076_1.jpg Caption: Large trees in lands ide slope near Cal Expo.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """ llillill
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect lD: AR03_2009_a_0076 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009_a_0076_2.jpg Caption: Large trees in landside slope near Cal Ex po.
Inspect ID: AR03_2009_a_0005 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009_a_0005_1.jpg Caption: Large trees within 15 feet of lands ide toe.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' ~ US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR03 _ 2009 _a _0086 Name: USACE_ CESPK_AR03 _ 2009 _a_0086 _1 .jpg Caption: Trees and brush on waterside slope.
Inspect ID: AR03_2009 _a_0082 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_0082_J.jpg Caption: Large tree stump near waterside toe.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.'llfl
lii:iil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR03_2009 _a_0077 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_0077 _ I .jpg Caption: Typical landside sod cover
Inspect ID: AR03_2009_a_Ol 14 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009_a_OI 14_ 1.jpg Caption: Typical waterside sod cover.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Page II of 16
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.lll'l
~ US Anny Corps
"f Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR03_2009 _a_0002 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_0002_l.jpg Caption: Fence line at lands ide toe west of Highway 160.
Jnspect ID: AR03_2009_a_0077 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009_a_0077_3.jpg Caption: Fence line at landside toe near Cal Expo.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.lll'l
111:.1.1
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR03 _2009 _a_0050 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_OOSO_ J.jpg Caption: Pipe gates across levee crest at railroad crossing near 1-80 Business.
Inspect ID: AR03_2009 _a_004 1 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_004l _l.jpg Caption: Pump station east of Lathrop Way.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.lll'l
lli;iil
US Army Corps
,-,f Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR03_2009 _a_0063 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_0063_l.jpg Caption: Pump station near Cal Expo.
Inspect ID: AR03_2009 _a_0071 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_007l_l.jpg Caption: Masonry building at lands ide toe within Cal Expo.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """ lli:iil
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect JD: AR03_2009_a_0024 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009_a_0024_l.jpg Caption: 24 inch pipe at landside toe; the pipe is connected to a facility marked "City of North Sacramento Pumping Plant" ; concrete block appears to be an abandoned pipe related to the Pumping plant.
Inspect ID: AR03_2009 _a_0025 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_0025_l.jpg Caption: City of North Sacramento Pumping Plant building (possibly abandoned).
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Page IS of 16
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """ lll:.iil
US Anny Corps
.,f Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR03_2009 _a_0088 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_0088_1 .jpg Caption: Floodgate closure across Del Paso Blvd.
Inspect ID: AR03_2009 _a_0092 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR03_2009 _a_0092_2.jpg Caption: Stoplog closure across Union Pacific Railroad tracks.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Unit 3, SRFCP I
Inspect ID Feature Easting 1 Northing 1
USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0001 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4726 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0054 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4493 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0081 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4727 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0082 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4723 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0086 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4715 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0096 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4708 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0115 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4452 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0133 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4707 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0141 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4444 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0142 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4380 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0002 3. Encroachments -121.4725 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0055 3. Encroachments -121.4493 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0066 3. Encroachments -121.4445 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0077 3. Encroachments -121.4413 USACE CESPK AR03 2009 a 0124 3. Encroachments -121.4337 Note: This is not an all inclusive list of unacceptable rated items and should be used as a means to identify similar issues within the levee segment.
38.6029
38.5960
38.6022
38.6015
38.6004
38.5998
38.5940
38.5998
38.5933
38.5902
38.6031
38.5960
38.5933
38.5910
38.5897
Easting 2 Northing 2
0.0000 0.0000
-121.4482 38.5957
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
-121.4727 38.6026
-121.4482 38.5957
-121.4438 38.5928
-121.4284 38.5890
0.0000 0.0000
(
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Supplemental Data Sheet
This form is intended for the Corps' internal use and may not need to be updated with every inspection.
Name of Segment I System:
Sponsor:
Location:
River Basin :
Project Description:
Authority that Project was Constructed Under:
Date of Construction:
Approximate Annual Maintenance Costs:
Construction:
Maintenance:
D Federally Constructed
D Federally Maintained
National Flood Insurance Program:
a. Js the project currently NFJP 0 1:8] Yes D No
b. I fin the NFIP, Date of Certification (per 44 CFR 65.1 0):
Datum lnforrnation:
a. Datum used for the design and construction of this project is:
b. Current recommended datum for this project is:
1:8] Non-Federally Constructed
1:8] Non-Federally Maintained
c. Has the Project been converted to the current recommended datum? DYes 1:8] No Levee Embankment Data:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
""' lii:iil
Levee Designed Gage Function Reading/Station:
Level of Protection Provided:
Average Height of Levee:
Average Crown Width:
Average Side Slope:
US Am1y Corps
of Engineers®
Protected Features (For use in preparing estimates and P[Rs):
a. Total acres protected :
b. Total agriculture production acres protected:
c. Towns:
d. Businesses:
e. Residences:
f. Roads:
g. Utilities:
h. Barns:
1. Machine Sheds:
j . Outbuildings:
k. Irriga tion Systems:
I. Grain Bins:
m . Other Faci lities:
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Supplemental Data Sheet
Page I of I
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Name of Segment I System: ARFCD- Unit 3, MA 10 and II (AR3B) I American River Right Bank, NMDEC I Califomia 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 Yidaurry, G. Frank Ransley, AI DeLeon Date of Inspection: 12131 12009
Inspection Report Prepared By: Ed Mak Date Report Prepared: 2,' ] 812010 ------------------------------------------------------- lntemal Technical Review (for Periodic Inspections) By: R. Kevin Tillis Date of lTR: 212312010 -------------------------------------------- ----------------- Final Approved By: Michael Mahoney Date Approved: 511912010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Type of Inspection:
Contents of Report:
0 Initial Eligibility Inspection
0 Continuing Eligibility Inspection (Routine)
r8J Continuing Eligibility Inspection (Periodic)
[gj Instructions
0 Initial Eligibility Inspection
[gj General Items for All Flood Control Works
[gj Levee Embankment
0 Concrete Floodwalls
0 Sheet Pile and Concrete 1-walls
0 Interior Drainage System
[gj Pump Stations
0 FDR System Channels
Overall Segment I System Rating: 0 Acceptable
[gJ Minimally Acceptable
0 Unacceptable
Note: ln 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 infonnation for a levee certification detennination for National Flood Insurance Program (NflP) 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 NflP 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 I evee d. !Strict to manage the levee segment I system maintenance program.
I. Levee segment I system and district: (name of the segment I system and levee district) ARFCD- Unit 3, MA I 0 and II (AR3B) I Ameri can 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:
""" llii:iil
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 infonnation is to be provided by the levee district sponsor prior to an inspection 8 L evee d1stnct ' orgamzation:
Name
Tim Kerr
Richar Marek
Karolyn W. Simon
Brian F. Holloway
Bettina C Redway
Virginia G. Moose
Derek W. Minnema
~
lii:iil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
( e I ecte d or appomte d I evee district officials and key employees) Position
General Manager
Superintendent
President
Vice President
Trustee
Treasurer
Secretary
Ma iling Address
I 65 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 958 18
I 65 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 958 18
I 65 Commerce Circle, Suite D, Sacramento, CA 958 I 8
165 Commerce Circle, Suite D, Sacramento, CA 958 18
165 Commerce Circle, Sui te D, Sacramento, CA 958 18
165 Commerce Circle, Suite D, Sacramento, CA 95818
I 65 Commerce Circle, SuiteD, Sacramento, CA 958 18
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Phone Number
(9 16) 929-4006
(9 16) 929-4006
(9 16) 9?9-4006
(9 16) 447-0284
(916) 929-4006
(9 I 6) 929-4006
(9 16) 929-4006
Email Address
tkerr@arfcd. org
[email protected]
[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 value of Federal investments, and to encourage non-Federal sponsors to bear responsibility for their own protection. Inspections should assure that Flood Damage Reduction structures and facilities are continually maintained and operated as necessary to obtain the maximum benefits. lnspections are also conducted to determine eligibility for Rehabilitation Assistance under authority of PL 84-99 for Federal and non-Federal systems. (ER 1130-2-530. ER 500-1-1) B. Types oft nspections:
The Corps conducts several types of inspections of Flood Damage Reduction systems, as outlined below:
Continuing Eligibility Inspections
Initial Eligibility Inspections
Routine Inspections Periodic Inspections
I Eis are conducted to determine whether a non- Ris are intended to verify proper Pls 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 Inspections evaluate the system's original design criteria system meets the minimum criteria and standards set preparedness. and component vs. current 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 Inspection Program. identify components and features for the sponsor that need to be monitored more closely over time or corrected as needed. (Periodic Lnspections 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 rating 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 flood damage A flood damage reduction segment is defined as a discrete 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 determining 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 failure regardless of specific land use.
Agricultu raJ
Protected population in the range of zero to 5
households per square mile protected.
r.'lllfl
~ US Army Corps
of Engineers"
Rural Urban
Protected population in the range Greater than 20 households per square mile; major industrial areas with significant infrastructure investment. of 6 to 20 households per square Some protected urban areas have no permanent population but may be industrial areas with high value mile protected. infrastructure with no overnight population.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
General Instructions
E. Use of the Inspection Report Template:
The report template is intended for use in all Army Corps of Engineers inspections of levee and fl oodwa ll systems and flood damage reducti on channels. The section of the template labeled "lnitial Eligibility" only needs to be comp leted 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 "Public 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 criteria provided in the inspecti on report template, though in.spectors may incorporate additional items into the report based on the characteristics of the system. The assessment of individual components shou ld be based on the following definitions.
Acceptable Item Minimally Acceptable Item Unacceptable Item The inspected item is in satisfactory condition, with The inspected item has one or more minor defi ciencies that need to be The inspected item has one or more serious deficiencies that no defic iencies, and wi II function as intended during corrected. The minor deficiency or deficiencies will not seriously impair the need to be corrected. The serious deficiency or deficiencies will the next flood 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 definitions below. Note that an Unacceptable System Ratin g may be either based on an engineering determination that conc luded that noted deficiencies would prevent the system from functioning as intended during th e next flood event, or based on the sponsor's demonstrated lack of commitment or inability to correc t seri ous deficiencies in a timely manner.
Acceptable System Minimally Acceptable System Unacceptable System All 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 1 system from performing as intended, or a serious Unacceptable items would nor prevent the segment I system from performing deficiency noted in past inspections (wh ich had previously as intended during the next flood event. resulted in a minimall y acceptable system ratin g) 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 (RIP) and eligib le for rehabilitation assistance from the Corps as defined below:
If the Overall System Rating is Acceptable
The system is active in the RIP and eligi ble for
PL84-99 rehabilitation assistance.
r.'lllfl
lliUI
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 deficienci es (which had previously resulted in a minimally acceptable system rating) were corrected within the established timcframc. then the system will become Inactive in the RIP.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
If the Overall System Ra ting is Unacceptable
The system is Inactive in the RIP. and the status will remain Inactive until the sponsor presents USACE with proof that 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 report if it was a Periodic Inspection) including the following infom1ation:
a. All sections of the report 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 relative importance of the identified maintenance issues should be specified in the transmittal 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 timetTame, the system will be rated as Unacceptable and made Inactive 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.
~
llillll
US Army Corps
of Engineers'•
If the Overall System Rating is Minimally Acceptable
Reports need to be provided to the local sponsor, state emergency management agency, county emergency management agency, and to the FEMA region.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
If the 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 Congressional delegation within 30 days of the inspection.
General Instructions
I
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 Rating Guidelines
Operations and Levee Owner's Manua l, 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 materia ls as pan of their M preparedness activities.
Flood Sponsor has a written system-specific flood response plan and a solid understanding of how to Preparedness and
A operate, ma intain, and stalTthe FOR system during a flood. Sponsor maintains a list of Tra ining emergency contact information for appropriate personnel and other emergency response (A or M only) A agenc ies.
The sponsor maintains a good working knowledge of flood response activities, but M documentation of system-speci fie emergency procedures and emergency contact personnel is insufficient or out of date.
Location/Remarks/Recommendations
This segment was rated Minima lly Acceptable for
Operations and Maintenance Manuals because the manual
does not include all modifi cations to the project since originally constructed, such as instal lation of cutoff walls and construction and abandoning of pump stations.
Key: A = Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction f'lllft
liillll
US Army Corps
nf 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 Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Unwanted The levee has little or no unwanted vegetation (trees, bush, or undesirable weeds), except for There are many trees within 15 feet of the landside toe, Vegetation vegetation that is properly contained and/or situated on overbuilt sections, such that the especially from Howe Avenue east for approximately 2.5 Growth' mandatory 3-foot root-free zone is preserved around the levee profile. The levee has been levee miles. Most of these trees are behind fences.
A recently mowed. The vegetation-free zone extends 15 feet from both the landside and presumably on private property. 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 There are sporadic trees on the levee side of adjacent easement limits. Reference EM 1110-2-301 or Corps policy for regional vegetation variance. properry fence lines and on the landside slope. These trees Minimal vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or trees 2 inches in diameter or smaller) is present range in size up to about 36-inches in diameter.
M within the zones described above. Th is vegetation must be removed but does not cunently There are many trees at and within 15 feet beyond the threaten the operation or integrity of the levee. waterside toe. Most of these trees range in si ze from 12 to Significant vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or any trees greater than 2 inches in diameter) is 30 inches in diameter Occasionally there are trees up to 60 present within the zones described above and must to be removed to reestablish or ascertain inches in diameter levee integrity.
There are two locations on the wa terside slope with trees u approximate ly 42-inches in diameter.
At some locations, grass on both the lands ide and waterside slopes was up to 18 inches tall during the periodic
inspection.
v The levee was rated Unacceptable for Unwanted Vegetation Growth primarily because large trees and brush are growing on the landside and waterside slopes and within 15 feet beyond the lands ide and waterside roes.
Large trees may be blown over during high wind events,
causing significant damage to the levee embankment.
Heavy brush hinders proper inspection of the levee slope surface. Large trees, heavy brush and their root systems wi thin 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 signifi cant portion or over M significant portions of the levee embankment. This may be the result of over-grazing or feeding on the levee, unauthorized vehicular traffic, chemical or insect problems, or burning A during inappropriate seasons.
v Over 50% of the sod cover is missing or damaged over a significant porrion 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 r.'lll'l
lii:iil
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
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 trash, debris, unauthorized farming activity. structures. excavations, or other obstructions There are many facilities built on, through and adjacent to A present within the easement area. Encroachments have been previously reviewed by the the levee, including buried utilities, uti lity poles, buildings Corps, and it was determined that they do not diminish proper functioning of the levee. and fences. It is unlikely that all of the encroachments are Trash, debris. unauthorized farming activity. structures, excavations, or other obstructions pennitted. In most cases these enc roachments will likely not present, or inappropriate activities no ted that should be corrected but will not inhibit interfere with flood control maimenance and operations.
M operations and maintenance or emergency ope rations. Encroachments have not been At the eastern extent of the levee segment (near McClaren reviewed by the Corps. Drive and nonh of Arden Way) homeowners have built Unauthorized encroachments or inappropriate activities noted are likely ro inhibit operations many encroac hments on and around the levee. Flood and maintenance, emergency operations, or negatively impact the integrity of the levee. fighting operations may be hinde red by existing u encroachments which include homes, swimming pools,
fences, landscapi ng and numerous other types of
improvements.
u The levee was rated Unacceptable for Encroachments
primarily because of the presence of encroachments which may inhibit operations and maintenance of the levee and potentially negatively impact the integrity of the levee. In the absence of these encroachments, the levee would likely be rated Minimally Acceptable due to the presence of
unpermitted encroachments.
Closure Structures Closure structure in good repa ir. Placing equipment, stoplogs, and other materials are readily (Stop Log, A ava il able at all times. Components are clearly marked and installation instructions/ Earthen Closures, procedures readily available. Trial erections have been accomplished in accordance with the Ga tes. or Sandbag O&M Manual.
Closures) Any of the following issues is cause for this rating: Closure structure in poor conditio n. Parts (A or U on ly) NA missing or corroded. Placing equipment may not be available within the antic ipated warning u time. The storage vaults cannot be opened during the time of inspection. Components of closure are nor clearly marked and installation instructions/ procedures are not readi ly available. Tri al erections have not been accomplished in accordance with the O&M Manual.
N/A
There are no closure structures along this component of the FOR 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 nor pose an immediate threat to the levee embankment. u Major slope stability problems (ex. deep seated sliding) identified that must be repaired to reestablish the integrity of the levee embankment.
Erosion/ Bank A A No erosion or bank caving is observed on the landwa rd or riverward sides of the levee that Caving might endanger its stabi lity.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FOR = Flood Damage Reduction "" lli:lll
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations M There are areas where minor erosion is occurring or has occurred on or near the levee embankment, but levee integrity is not threatened.
Erosion or caving is occurring or has occurred that threatens the stability and integrity of the u levee. The erosion or caving has progressed into the levee section or into the extended footprint of the levee foundation and has compromised the levee foundation stability.
7. Settlement' No observed depressions in crown. Records exist and indicate no unexplained historical A changes.
A M Minor irregularities that do not threaten integrity of levee. Records are incomplete or inclusive.
u Obvious variations in elevation over significant reaches. No records exist or records indicate that design elevation is compromised.
8. Depressions/ There are scattered, shallow ruts, pot holes, or other depressions on the levee that are Rutting A unrelated to levee settlement. The levee crown, embankments, and access road crowns are well established and drain properly without any ponded water.
A There are some infrequent minor depressions less than 6 inches deep in the levee crown, M embankment, or access roads that will pond water. u There are depressions greater than 6 inches deep that will pond water
9. Cracking A
Minor longitudinal, transverse, or desiccation cracks with no venical movement along the crack. No cracks extend continuously through the levee crest Longitudinal and/or transverse cracks up to 6 inches in depth with no venical movement along A M the crack_ No cracks extend continuously through the levee crest. Longitudinal cracks are no longer than the height of the levee_
Cracks exceed 6 inches in depth. Longitudinal cracks are longer than the height of the levee u and/or exhibit venical movement along the crack. Transverse cracks extend through the entire levee width.
I 0. Animal Control A
Continuous animal burrow control program in place that includes the elimination of active Animal Control received a Minimally Acceptable rating burrowing and the filling in of existing burrows. because numerous un-flagged, un-grouted, active rodent The existing animal burrow control program needs to be improved. Several burrows are holes were observed on the levee slopes. Rodent holes M present which may lead to seepage or slope stability problems, and they require immediate ranging in size from about 2 inches to 8 inches were anention. observed on both the landside and waterside slopes. The Animal burrow control program is not effective or is nonexistent_ Significant maintenance is sponsor indicated that they maintain an active animal control M program which includes flagging active rodent holes, baiting required to fill existing burrows, and the levee will not provide reliable flood protection until rodents, and grouting burrows. The animal control program this maintenance is complete. appeared active based on the presence of yellow marker u flags, filled holes, and some excess grout at cenain locations.
However, numerous un-flagged active rodent holes were
observed on the levee slopes, indicating a more active
animal control program is required.
Key: A= Acceptable. M ~·Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. NIA =Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction ""' lliW
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
II
12. 13.
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Culverts/ There are no breaks, holes, cracks in the discharge pipes! culverts that would result in The condition of the discharge pipes have not been verifi ed Discharge Pipes3 significant water leakage. The pipe shape is still essentially circular. All joints appear to be using television camera video recordi ngs or visual inspection (This item closed and the soil tight. Corrugated metal pipes, if present, are in good condition with 100% methods within the last five years. An Unacceptable rating inc I udes both A of the original coating sti ll in place (either asphalt or galvanizing) or have been relined with was assigned. concrete and appropriate material, which is still in good condition. Condition of pipes has been verified corrugated metal using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the past five years. pipes.) and the report for every pipe is avail able for review by the inspector.
There a re a sma ll number of corrosion pinholes or cracks that could leak water and need to be repaired, but the entire length of pipe is still structurall y sound and is not in danger of collapsing. Pipe shape may be ovalized in some locations but does not appear to be approach ing a curvature reversal. A limited number of joints may have opened and soil loss u
M may be beginning. Any open joints should be repaired prior to the next inspection.
Corrugated metal pipes, if present, may be showing corrosion and pinholes but there are no areas with total section loss. Condition of pipes has been verified using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the past five years, and the report for every pipe is availabl e for review by the inspector.
Culvert has deterioration and/or has significant leakage; it is in danger of collapsing or as already begun to collapse. Corrugated metal pipes have suffered I 00% section loss in the u invert. HOWEVER: Even if pipes appear to be in good condition, as judged by an external visual inspection. an t..:nacceptable Rating will be assigned if the condition of pipes has not been verifi ed using television camera video taping or visual inspect ion methods within the past five years, and reports for all pipes a re not available for review by the inspector.
N/A There are no discharge pipes/ cul verts.
Riprap No riprap displacement or stone degradation that could pose an immediate threat to the Revetments & A integrity of channel bank. Riprap intact with no woody vegetation present.
Bank Protection
Minor riprap displacement or stone degradation that could pose an immediate threat to the M integrity of the channel bank. Unwanted vegetation must be cleared or sprayed with an NA
appropriate herbicide.
Significant riprap displacement, exposure of bedding, or stone degTadation observed. Scour u activity is undcrcuning banks, erod ing embankments, or impairing channel nows by causing turbulence or shoaling. Rock protection is hidden by dense brush, trees, or grasses.
N/A There is no riprap protecting this feature of the segment I system, or riprap is discussed in another section.
Revetments other A Existing revetment protection is properly maintained, undamaged. and clearly visible. than Riprap
NA Minor revetment displacement or deterioration that docs not pose an immediate threat to the 1\1 integrity of the levee. Unwanted vegetation must be cleared or sprayed with an appropriate herbicide.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/ A= Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction f'1lr.'ll
lliU
US Army Corps
nf Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
-
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Significant revetment displacement, deterioration, or exposure of bedding observed. Scour u activity is undercutting banks, eroding embankments. or impairing channel flows by causing turbulence or shoaling. Revettnent protection is hidden by dense brush and trees.
N/A There are no such revetments protecting this feature of the segment I system.
14. U nderseepage Toe drainage systems and pressure relief we lls necessary for maintaining FOR segment I ReliefWellsl Toe system stability during high water functioned properly during the last flood event and no Drainage Systems A
sediment is observed in horizontal system (if appl icable). Nothing is observed which would indicate that the drainage systems won't function properly during the next flood, and maintenance records indicate regular cleaning. Wells have been pumped tested within the past 5 years and documentation is provided.
NA
Toe drainage systems or pressure relief we lls are damaged and may become clogged if they M are not repaired. Maintenance records are incomplete or indicate irregular cleaning and pump testing.
Toe drainage systems or pressure relief we lls necessary for maintaining FOR segment I u system stability during flood events have fa ll en into disrepair or have become clogged. 0 maintenance records. No documentation of the required pump testi ng.
N.IA There are no relief wells/ toe drainage systems along this component of the FDR segment I system.
15. Seepage A No evidence or history of unrepaired seepage, saturated areas, or boils.
A M Evidence or history of minor unrepaired seepage or small saturated areas at or beyond the landside toe but not on the landward slope of levee. No evidence of soil transport. u Evidence or history of active seepage, extensive saturated areas, or boils. 1 If there is significant growth on the levee that inhibits the inspection of animal burrows or other items, the inspection should be ended until this item is corrected. 2 Detailed survey elevations are normally required during Periodic Inspections, and whenever there are obvious visual settlements. 3 The decision on whether or not USACE inspectors should enter a pipe to perform a detailed inspection must be made at the USACE District leve l. This decision should be made in conjunction with the District Safety Office, as pipes may be considered confined spaces. This decision should consider the age of the pipe, the di ameter of the pipe, the apparent conditi on of the pipe, and the length of the pipe. If a pipe is entered for the purposes of inspection, the inspector should record observations with a video camera in order that the condition of the entire pipe, inc luding all joints, can later be assessed. Additiona lly, the video record provides a baseline to whi ch future inspections can be compared.
Key: A = Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction """ lii:lil
US Army COfllS
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' Liliil
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009_a_0033 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009_a_0033_1.jpg Caption: Brush and trees growing at landside toe.
Inspect ID: AR38_2009 _a_0035 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR38_2009 _a_0035_1.jpg Caption: Large tree at landside toe.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """ Li&lll
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009 a_OI22 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009_a_OI22_3jpg Caption: Large trees on :andside slope and parking lot on landside toe.
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009_a_Oi03 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009_a_0103_3.jpg Caption: Landscaping bushes near landside toe.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """ lli:iil
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009_a_0324 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009_a_0324_1.jpg Caption: Large trees growing on waterside slope and toe.
Inspect ID: AR38_2009 _a_Ol03 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009 _a_Ol 03_l.jpg Caption: Large tree and heavy brush located on waterside slope and toe.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """ ~ US Anny Corps of Engineers®
Inspect JD: AR3B_2009_a_OI96 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009_a_OI96_J.jpg Caption: Large trees near Jandside toe on levee side of fen ce.
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009_a_0026 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009_a_0026_J.jpg Caption: Typical sod cover on Jandside slope; grass is healthy, fu ll and short.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' lli:ill
US Army Corps
of Engi neers®
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009_a_l002 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009_a_l002_1.jpg Caption: Typical sod cover on waterside; grass is healthy, full and short. rnspect rD: AR3B_2009 _a_0163 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009 _a 0\63_1.jpg Caption: Sod cover on Jandside slope sparse at this location Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' lli:iil
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009_a_0004 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009_a_0004_l.jpg Caption: Fence, trucks, 55-gallon drums, light posts less than 15 fee t from landside toe.
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009 _a_0019 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009 _a_0019 _l.jpg Caption: Wooden stairway constructed on landside slope.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Page II of 20
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """" ~ US Anny Corps
,.,f Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009 _a_0032 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR38_2009 _a_0032_3.jpg Caption: Fence line and vegetation at 10 to 15 feet from landside toe.
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009 _a_0036 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009 _a_0036_l.jpg Caption: Planter boxes constructed about I 0 feet from landside toe.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Page12of20
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems """ lli:lil
US Anny Corps of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR38_2009 _a_OOJ3 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR38_2009 _a_00 13_2.jpg Caption: The Cal Expo- Howe Avenue pumping plant.
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009 _a_OOJ3 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR38_2009 _a_OOJ3_ 4.jpg Caption: Outfall for the Cal Expo-Howe Avenue pumping plant.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' ~ US Am1y Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect lD: AR3B_2009_a_00 15 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009_a_00 15_J.jpg Caption: Drain from outfa ll to Ameri can River at Cal Expo-Howe Avenue pumping plant.
Inspect lD: AR3B_2009 _a_0038 Name: USACE_ CESPK_AR3B_2009 _a_0038_2.jpg Caption: Pump station near Kadema Dti ve at Tryon Court (approx. 0.5 levee mi les west of Watt Avenue).
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
(
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' 111:111
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect JD: AR38_2009 _a_0070 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR38_2009 _a_0070_1.jpg Caption: Pumping station approximately 0.1 levee miles west of Harrington Way.
Inspect JD: AR38 _ 2009 _a_ 0 I 05 Name: USACE_ CESPK_AR38_2009 _a_O I 05 _S.Jpg Caption: Pumping plant approximately 0.5 levee miles east of Watt Avenue.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Page IS of20
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' lliUI
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect lD: AR38_2009_a_0192 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009_a_O J92_ l.jpg Caption: Pumping plant approx imately 0.2 levee mi les north of Fair Oaks Boul evard.
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009 _a_0023 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009 _a_0023_3.j pg Caption: Pump station approximately 0.4 levee miles east of Howe Avenue.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ""' lli:lll
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect JD: AR38_2009 _a_Ol90 Name: US ACE_ CESPK_AR38_2009 _a_0 190_1.jpg Caption: Erosion at pedestrian access ramp on landside slope.
Inspect ID: AR38 _2009_a_0045 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR38_2009 _a_0045_l jpg Caption: Erosion due to runoff near Watt Avenue bridge approach.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems ~
lliUI
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Inspect ID: AR38_2009_a_0045 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR38_2009_a_0045_3.Jpg Caption: Erosion due to runoff near Watt Avenue bridge approach.
Inspect ID: AR38_2009 _a_l028 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR38_2009 _a_l028_l.Jpg Caption: Depressions at waterside toe with ponded water.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.!lf.l
lil;lil
US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
InspectJD: AR3B_2009_a_I049 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3B_2009_a_J049_1.jpg Caption: Minor depressions under Watt Avenue bridge where pedestrians have displaced rock meant to dissipate energy of runoff water from bridge drains.
Inspect ID: AR3B_2009 _a_0033 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR38_2009 _a_0033_3.jpg Caption: Landside levee slope showing marker flags for animal control program.
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Levee Embankments
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems r.'llft
~ US Army Corps
nf Engineers®
InspectiD: AR38_2009_a_0080 Name: USACE_CESPK_AR3 8_2009_a_0080_Ljpg Caption: Evidence of numerous rodents on landside slope Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
1 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
(
Pump Stations
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of pump stations Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations Pump Stations Operation, maintenance and inspection records are present at the pump station and are being Operating, A used and updated, and personnel have been tTained in pump station operations. Names and last Maintenance, training date shown in the record book .
Training, & A Operation, maintenance and inspection records are present but not adequately used and Inspection M updated. Records
u No operation, maintenance and inspection records are present, or refresher training for personnel has not been conducted.
Pump Station Operation and Maintenance Equipment Manuals and/or posted operating instructions are Operations and A present and updated as required, and adequatel y cover all pertinent pump station features.
Maintenance O&M manuals include points of contact for manufacturers and suppli ers of major equipment Equipment used in the facility.
Manuals A Operation and Maintenance Equipment Manuals and/or posted operating instructions are M present and adequately cover all peninent pump station features. However, they are incomplete and the necessary updates have not been made. u Operation and Maintenance Equipment Manuals are not available.
Safety A Safety compliance inspection reports by applicable local, state, or federal agencies available Compliance A for review.
M No safety compliance inspection repons are available for review.
Communications A telephone, cellular phone, two-way radio, or similar device is available to pump station (A or M only) A operator and maintenance personnel.
A
M A telephone, cellular phone, rwo-way radio, or similar device is not available to pump station operator and maintenance personnel.
Plant Building The building is in good structural condition with no major foundation settlement problems. A The roof is not Jea~ing, intake & exhaust louvers are clear of debris, fans are operational, etc.
There are minor structural defects, minimal foundation settlement, leaks, or other conditions A M noted that need repair. Defects do not threaten the structural integrity or stability of the building, and will not impact pumping operations.
u The structural integrity or stability of the building is threatened, or there is damage to the building that threatens safety of the operator or impacts pumping operations.
Fencing and
A Fencing is in good condition and provides protection against falling or unauthori zed access.
Gates' Gates open and close freely, Jocks are in place, and there is little corrosion on meta l parts.
A M Fencing or gates are damaged or corroded but appear to be maintainable. Locks may be missing or damaged.
u Fenci ng and gates a re damaged or corroded to the point that replacement is required, or potentially dangerous features are not secured.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U =Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction r."-1
~ US Anny Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Pump Stations
Page I of5
7. 8.
9. 10.
II
Pump Stations
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of pump stations Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines r Location/Remarks/Recommendations . y - N/A There are no features noted that require safety fencing.
Pumps I All pumps are properly maintained and lubricated. Systems are periodically tested and A documented for review. No vibration, cavitation noises or unusual sounds are noted when the pump is operated. Bearing temperature sensor records don't indicate any problems.
Minor deficiencies noted that need to be closely monitored or repaired, such as the presence of A M slight vibrations, leakage of packing gland, bearing temperature sensors are inoperable or no record is present. However, the pumps are operational and are expected to perform through the next period of usage.
Major deficiencies identified that may significantly reduce pumping operations. For example, u bearing sensor records indicate problems, excessive vibration noted. impellers are badly corroded, or there are eroded or missing blades.
Motors, Engines, All items are operational. Preventative maintenance and lubrication is being performed and Fans, Gear A the system is periodically subjected to perfonnance testing. Instrumentation, alarms, bearing Reducers, Back sensors and auto shutdowns are operational.
Stop Devices, etc. A Systems have minor deficiencies, but are operational and will function adequately through the M next flood . Bearing sensors are not operational. u One or more of the primary motors or systems is not operational, or noted deficiencies have not been corrected.
Sumps I Wet well A Clear of debris, sediment, or other obstructions. Procedures are in place to remove debris accumulation during operation.
Debris. sediment. or other obstructions may be present and must be removed, but the sump/ A M wet well will function as intended during the next flood. Procedures are in place to remove debris accumulation during operation.
u Large debris or excessive silt present which will hinder or damage pumps during operation, or no procedures established to remove debris accumulation during operation.
Mechanical Drive chain, bearing, gear reducers, and other components are in good operating condition and Operating Trash A are being properly maintained.
Rakes'
The trash rake is in need of maintenance, but is still operational. A M u Trash rake not operational or deficiencies will inhibit operations during the next flood event.
N/A There are no mechanical trash rakes.
Non-Mechanical
Trash Racks A Trash racks are fastened in place and properly maintained.
A Trash racks are in place but arc w1fastened or have bent bars that allow debris to enter into the M pipe or pump station, bars are corroded to the point that up to I 0% of the sectional area may be lost. Repair or replacement is required.
Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FOR= Flood Damage Reduction r.llll'l
llliUI
US Arrny Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Pump Stations
.
(
Pump Stations
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of pump stations Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations u Trash racks are missing or damaged to the extent that they are no longer functional and must be replaced. (For example, more than 10% of the sectional area may be lost.) N/A There are no trash racks, or they are covered in the pump stations section of the report.
12. Fuel System for A Fuel system is operational, day tank present and operational, fuel fresh and rotated regularly. Pump Engines M Fuel system is operational and of adequate capacity, but day tank is missing or fuel is not fresh A and rotated regularly.
u Fuel system not functional.
N/A No fuel system.
13. Power Source The nom1al power source and backup generators, if installed, are operational, properly The segment was rated Marginally Acceptable for Power A exercised and well maintained. Surge protection, grounding, lightning protection, Sources because Pump Station DOS does not have a transfom1e.rs, and automatic/manual transfer of main power to backup system is working. dedicated generator.
M
Normal power source and backup units, if applicable, are operational with minor discrepancies M or maintenance, inspection and exercising record is present but not up to date. Preventative maintenance or repairs are required.
u Nom1al power source or generators are not operational and must be repaired; or generator, if required, is not on site.
14. Electrical Operational and maintained free of damage, corrosion, and debris. Preventative maintenance Systems2 A and system testing is being performed periodically.
A 1\1 Operational with minor discrepancies. Preventative maintenance or repairs are required, but the components are expected to function adequately during the next flood event. lJ Components of the electrical system will not function adequately during the next flood event and must be replaced.
IS. Megger Testing Results of megger tests on pump motors or critical power cables show that the insulation The segment was rated Minimally Acceptable for Megger on Pump Motors A meets manufacturer's or industry standards. Tested within the last year. Testing because the most current tests are more than one and Critical Power year old for equipment at Pump Stations DOS and D43.
Cables Megger testing not conducted within the past year. If megger tests on pump motors indicate M that insulation resistance is below the manufacturer's or industry standard, but the resistance M can be corrected with proper application of heat, this is minimally acceptable. (The application of heat does not relate to critical power cables.) Megger tests not conducted within past two years, or tests indicate that insulation resistance is u low enough that the equipment will not be able to meet design standards of operation; or evidence of arcing or shorting is detected visually.
Key: A= Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U =Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR =Flood Damage Reduction f.'2llfl
~ US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Pump Stations
Pump Stations
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of pump stations Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations
16. Enclosures, All enc losures, panels, conduits, and ducts arc protected from corrosion damage and show no Panels, Conduit A rust, damage, or deterioration that would cause a safety concern. and Ducts A M Minor surface corrosion which appears to be maintainable. Cleaning and painting required. u Severely corroded and must be replaced to prevent fai lure, equipment damage, or safety issues.
17. Intake and Intake and discharge pipelines have no corrosion and paint is intact, except for minor touch up Discharge A required. Pipe couplings and anchors have no leakage or corrosion.
Pipelines
A M Intake and discharge pipelines have minor corrosion and repair and painting is required. Pipe coupling with anchors have minor leakage, corrosion and require bolts to be tightened. u Intake and discharge pipelines have major corrosion and replacement is required. Pipe coupling with anchors have major leakage and is heavily corroded and requires replacement.
18. Sluice/ Slide Gates open and close freely to a tight seal or minor leakage. Gate operators are in good Gates ' working condition and are properly maintained Sill is free of sediment and other A obstructions. Gates and lifters have been maintained and are free of corrosion.
Documentation provided during the inspection.
Gates and/or operators have been damaged or have minor corrosion, and open and close with A M resistance or binding. Leakage quantity is controllable, but maintenance is required. Sill is free of sediment and other obstructions.
u Gates do not open or close and/or operators do not function. Gate, stem, lifter and/or guides may be damaged or have major corrosion.
N/A There arc no sluice/ slide gates.
19. Flap Gates/
Gates/ valves open and close easily with minimal leakage, have no corrosion damage, and Flap Valves/ A Pinch Valves' have been exercised and lubricated as required.
M Gates/ valves wi ll not fully open or close because of obstructi ons that can be easi ly removed, A or have minor corrosion damage that requires maintenance. u Gates/ va lves are missing, have been damaged, or have deteriorated to the point that they need to be replaced.
N/A There are no gates on discharge lines from pump station.
20. Cranes 1
Cranes operational and have been inspected and load tested in accordance with applicable A A standards within the last year. Documentati on is on hand.
Key: A = Acceptable. M =Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FOR= Flood Damage Reduction """ ~ US Arrry Corps
"f Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Pump Stations
21. (
Pump Stations
For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of pump stations Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks!Recommendations M Cranes have not been inspected or operationally tested within the past year, or there are visible signs of corrosion, oil leakage, etc, requiring maintenance. u Cranes are not operational, and this may prevent the pump station from functioning as required. No documentation available on cranes.
N/A There are no cranes.
Other Metallic A All metal parts are protected from corrosion damage and show no rust, damage, or Items deterioration that would cause a safety concern.
(Equipment, Corrosion seen on metallic parts appears to be maintainable.
Ladders, Platform M
Anchors, etc) A
u Metallic parts are severely corroded and require replacement to prevent failure, equipment damage, or safety issues.
N/A There are no other significant metallic items.
1 Proper operation of this item must be demonstrated during the inspection. 2 Check motor control center, circuit breakers, pilot lights, volt meters, ammeters, sump leve l indicator, gate position indicators, remote operating systems, including SCAD A and telemetry systems. Also, check interior and exterior lighting; especially lighting near trash rack screens, ladders, walkways, etc . 3 Proper operation of the gates (full open and closed) must be demonstrated during the inspection if no documentation is available. Be aware of both manual and electrical operators.
Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A =Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction ~
~
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Pump Stations
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Supplemental Data Sheet
This form is intended for the Corps' internal use and may not need to be updated with every inspection.
Name of Segment I System:
Sponsor:
Location:
River Basin:
Project Description:
Authority that Project was Constructed Under:
Date of Construction:
Approximate Annual Maintenance Costs:
Construction:
Maintenance:
[gj Federally Constructed
D Federally Maintained
National Flood Insurance Program:
a. ls the project currently NFfP? [gj yes D No
b. lf in the NFIP, Date of Certification (per 44 CFR 65.1 0):
Datum Information:
a. Datum used for the design and construction of this project is:
b. Cun·ent recommended datum for this project is:
D Non-Federally Constructed
[gj Non-Federally Maintained
c. Has the Project been converted to the current recommended datum'l DYes [gj No Levee Embankment Data:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
lf.'lllr.'ll
lli:ill
Levee Designed Gage Function Reading/Station:
Level of PrO\ection Provided:
Average Height of Levee:
Average Crown Width:
Average Side Slope
US Arrny Corps
of Engineers®
Protected Features (For use in preparing estimates and PIRs):
a. Total acres protected:
b. Total agriculture production acres protected:
c. Towns:
d. Businesses:
e. Residences:
f. Roads:
g. Utilities:
h. Barns:
1. Machine Sheds:
J. Outbuildings:
k.
I.
Irrigation Systems:
Grain Bins:
m. Other Facilities:
Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System
Inspection Report
Supplemental Data Sheet
Page I of I
Unit 3, American River Right Bank - MA 1 0 and '11 I
Inspect ID Feature Easting_ 1 Northing_ 1 Easting_ 2 Northing_ 2 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0025 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4022 38.5630 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0029 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3969 38.5643 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0033 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4078 38.5618 -121.3944 38.5650 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0035 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3926 38.5655 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0039 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3899 38.5667 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0040 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3890 38.5673 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0043 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3936 38.5652 -121.3860 38.5682 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0055 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3360 38.5894 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0060 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3359 38.5903 -121.3386 38.5856 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0076 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3495 38.5789 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0086 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3577 38.5751 -121.3586 38.5744 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0092 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3632 38.5725 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0115 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3789 38.5689 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0193 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4193 38.5832 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0202 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4229 38.5856 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0213 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4180 38.5816 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0225 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4199 38.5737 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0245 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3335 38.5947 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0249 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3335 38.5951 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0271 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3337 38.5930 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0274 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3335 38.5958 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0276 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3328 38.5974 -121.3325 38.5981 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0295 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3325 38.5981 -121.3315 38.5997 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0302 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3309 38.6006 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0319 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4092 38.5613 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0324 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3919 38.5657 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0325 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3891 38.5672 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0327 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4179 38.5817 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0328 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4198 38.5743 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0335 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4207 38.5717 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0336 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.4213 38.5696 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0339 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3339 38.5928 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0342 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3340 38.5926 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0350 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3335 38.5954 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0353 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3336 38.5946 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0355 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3335 38.5943 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0356 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3335 38.5939 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0359 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3314 38.5999 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0363 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3313 38.6001 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0366 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3307 38.6005 -121.3306 38.6008 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 1001 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3347 38.5918 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 1002 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3347 38.5918 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 1004 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3355 38.5910 -121.3362 38.5888 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 1021 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3465 38.5803 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 1024 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3505 38.5784 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 1027 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3590 38.5744 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 1032 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3649 38.5717 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 1038 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3673 38.5705 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 1040 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3673 38.5705 -121.3686 38.5702 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 1042 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3687 38.5702 -121.3697 38.5700 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 1045 1. Unwanted Vegetation Growth -121.3752 38.5695 -121.3771 38.5692 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0210 11. GulverUDischarge Pipes -121.4210 38.5840 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0010 3. Encroachments -121.4284 38.5891 -121.4231 38.5858 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0031 3. Encroachments -121.3956 38.5647 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0032 3. Encroachments -121.4078 38.5618 -121.3944 38.5650 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0042 3. Encroachments -121.3936 38.5652 -121.3861 38.5683 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0047 3. Encroachments -121.3833 38.5679 0.0000 0.0000 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0079 3. Encroachments -121.3446 38.5812 -121.3516 38.5779 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0085 3. Encroachments -121.3573 38.5753 -121.3585 38.5745 Unit 3, American River RiQht Bank- MA 10 and,11
Inspect ID Feature Easting_ 1 Northing_ 1
USACE CESPK AR3B 2009 a 0091 3. Encroachments -121.3621 USACE CESPK AR3B 2009 a 0102 3. Encroachments -121.3664 USACE CESPK AR3B 2009 a 0123 3. Encroachments -121 .3825 USACE CESPK AR3B 2009 a 0126 3. Encroachments -121.3807 USACE CESPK AR3B 2009 a 0194 3. Encroachments -121.4190 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0291 3. Encroachments -121 .3318 USACE CESPK AR3B 2009 a 0329 3. Encroachments -121.4211 USAGE GESPK AR3B 2009 a 0330 3. Encroachments -121.4178 USACE CESPK AR3B 2009 a 0331 3. Encroachments -121.4211 USACE CESPK AR3B 2009 a 0332 3. Encroachments -121.4095 USACE CESPK AR3B 2009 a 0333 3. Encroachments -121.4211 USACE CESPK AR3B 2009 a 0334 3. Encroachments -121.4213 USACE CESPK AR3B 2009 a 1033 3. Encroachments -121.3649 USACE CESPK AR3B 2009 a 1039 3. Encroachments -121.3673 Note: This is not an all inclusive list of unacceptable rated items and should be used as a means to identify similar issues within the levee segment.
38.5731
38.5710
38.5679
38.5684
38.5830
38.5992
38.5686
38.5621
38.5687
38.5614
38.5844
38.5696
38.5717
38.5705
Easting_ 2 Northing 2
-121.3632 38.5725
-121.3743 38.5697
0.0000 0.0000
-121 .3825 38.5680
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
-121.3662 38.5711
-121.3686 38.5702
Appendix D
Inspection Notes anclJor Trip Reports
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Hultgren- Tillis
Engineers
2221 Commerce Avenue, Suite A-1
Concord, California 94520-4987
Phone (925) 685-6300 • Fax (925) 685-6768 /
TO:
Jesse Hogan (USACE Sacramento District)
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED:
DATE ' JOB NO.
12/29/2009 710.06
PROJECT
Periodic InsjJection
LOCATION
AR2B (LM0.0-1.35) and AROl (LM 0.0-1.2)
CONTRACTOR OWNER
WEATHER TEMP. TIME ARRIVED TIME DEPARTED
Sunny 60 09:00AM !6:45PM
PRESENT AT SITE
Rick Chen Wilson Wong and Ken Murphy (HTE);
Larry Vidaurry, David Brotchie (MGE);
Richard Marek (ARFCD); Jesse Hogan (USACE)
Field inspection were performed by Rick Chen, Wilson Wong (Landside Crew), Ken Murphy, Larry Vidaurry and David Brotchi~ (Waterside Crew). Rick Chen was walking along the landside levee toe and Wilson Wong was walking along-the levee crown. Larry Vidaurry was walking along the waterside levee toe and Ken Murphy was on the levee crown. Inspection was conducted starting from the southern end of AR2B toward north; then, starting from the western end of ARO I toward east. ** LIS was not functional and field inspection forms and hand-held GPS were used for data recording. **
AR2B:
Generally, no significant deficiencies were observed during the inspection. Trees of approximately 36 inches in diameter were observed within 15 feet landside levee easement. Heavy brush up to 36 inches tall and grass up to 12 inches tall were observed on the landside slope at several locations. Significant unwanted vegetation was observed beyond Rail Road tracks (east ofRR). Minor erosion!rilling was observed in the upper landside slope at several locations. Rodent holes were observed on both slopes. There is one pump station encountered at the northern end of AR2B levee segment. RR was on the landside bench with control/utility boxes and utility poles. Fences, small retaining wall, pipe gates and access ramps were observed during the inspection.
AROI:
Generally, no significant deficiencies were observed during the inspection. Moderately tall grass up to 6 inches was observed. Heavy bmsh and trees were observed beyond fences (property limits). Wood/chain-link fenc es and utility poles were encountered within landsidel5 feet easement. Minor erosion was caused by foot traffic or hand-cut stairs.
One stop log was encountered at Norwood Ave. One pump station was encountered at about LM 1.2 with control valves, discharge pipes and concrete stairs. Wood debris and trash were observed at several locations in this levee segment.
COPIES TO
_____________ FIELI> R..EP<::>R.. T
SIGNED DATE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page D-1
Hultgren- Tillis
Engineers
2221 Commerce Avenue, Suite A-1
Concord, California 94520-4987
Phone (925) 685-6300 • Fax (925) 685-6768
TO:
Jesse Hogan (USACE Sacramento District)
DATE '
I 2/29/2009
PROJECT
Periodic Inspection
LOCATION
AR3A_(0.00-4.32)
CONTRACTOR
WEATHER
Cloudyy
I JOB NO.
710.06
OWNER
TEMP. TIME ARRIVED TIME DEPARTED
50 07:00AM !5:00PM
Rick Chen, Wilson Wong and Ken Murphy (HTE),
and Larry Vidauny (MGE)
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED:
Field inspection were performed by Rick Chen, Wilson Wong (Landside Crew), Ken Murphy, Larry Vidaurry and David Brotchie (Waterside Crew). Rick Chen was walking along the landside levee toe and Wilson Wong was walking along the levee crown. Larry Vidaurry was walking along the waterside levee toe and Ken Murphy was on the levee crown. Inspection was conducted starting from the southern end of AR2B toward north; then, starting from the western end of ARO 1 toward east. * * LIS was not functional and fie ld inspection forms and hand-held GPS were used for data recording. * *
AR2B:
Generally, no significant deficiencies were observed during the inspection. Trees of approximately 36 inches in diameter were observed within 15 feet landside levee easement. Heavy brush up to 36 inches tall and grass up to 12 inches tall were observed on the landside slope at several locations. Significant unwanted vegetation was observed beyond Rail Road tracks (east of RR). Minor erosionlrilling was observed in the upper landside slope at several locations. Rodent holes were observed on both slopes. There is one pump station encountered at the northern end of AR2B levee segment. RR was on the landside bench with control/utility boxes and utility poles. Fences, small retaining wall, pipe gates and access ramps were observed during the inspection.
AROl:
Generally, no significant deficiencies were observed during the inspection. Moderately tall grass up to 6 inches was observed. Heavy brush and trees were observed beyond fences (property limits). Wood/chain-link fences and utility poles were encountered within lands ide 15 feet easement. Minor erosion was caused by foot traffic or hand-cut stairs.
One stop log was encountered at Norwood Ave. One pump station was encountered at about LM 1.2 with control va lves, discharge pipes and concrete stairs. Wood debris and trash were observed at several locations in this levee segment.
COPIES TO
_____________ FIELI> :R.EP<::>:R. T
SIGNED DATE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page D-2
I
Hultgren- Tillis
Engineers
2221 Commerce Avenue, Suite A-1
Concord, California 94520-4987
Phone (925) 685-6300 • Fax (925) 685-6768
TO:
Jesse Hogan (USACE Sacramento District)
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED:
DATE ' JOB NO
12/30/2009 710.06
PROJECT
Periodic Inspection
LOCATION
ARO I (LM 1.2-2. I) and AR03 (0.67-3.42)
CONTRACTOR OWNER
WEATHER TEMP. TIME ARRIVE D TIME DEPARTED
Sunny 60 07:00AM !7:00PM
Rick Chen
and Larry Vidaurry (MGE)
Field inspection were performed by Rick Chen, Wilson Wong (Landside Crew), Ken Murphy, and Larry Vidaurry (Waterside Crew). Rick Chen was walking along the landside levee toe and Wilson Wong was driving the support truck and operating LIS along the levee crown. Larry Vidaurry was walking along the waterside levee toe and Ken Murphy was walking along the levee crown. Inspection was conducted starting from LM 1.2 to LM 2.1 of ARO 1; then, starting from the western end of AR03 (LM3.42) toward east. Field inspection was conducted using LIS by the landside crew. Hand-written forms and hand-held GPS were used by the waterside crew.
AROl (LM 1.2 to LM 2.1):
Generally, no significant deficiencies were observed during the inspection. Trees/tree stumps of up to 36 inches in diameter were ·observed on the slope and/or within 15 feet levee easement. Heavy brush and grass up to 12 inches tall which were partially or completely blocking inspection were observed on the landside slope at several locations.
Minor to moderate erosion/rilling caused by foot traffic or man-cut stairs was observed on slope at several locations.
Rodent holes were observed on both slopes. Chain-link and wood fences, brick walls with utility poles running parallel to levee alignment were observed at landside slope toe. Flood wall was observed to be installed in the crown near waterside hinge starting from east of Rio Linda Blvd to the east end of this segment. Pipe gates, access ramps, high voltage transmission tower were observed during the inspection. encountered at about LM 2.3 with control valves on the waterside slope and concrete stairs on both sides. The animal control program by ARFCD was noticed in the field with yellow flagging and cement grout. (Continued on next page)
COPIES TO
-------------FIELI> R.EPC)R_ T
SIGNED DATE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page D-3
Hultgren -Tillis
Engineers
2221 Commerce Avenue, Suite A-1
Concord, California 94520-4987
Phone (925) 685-6300 • Fax (925) 685-6768
TO:
Jesse Hogan (USACE Sacramento District)
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED:
AR03 (LM 0.67 to LM 3.42):
DATE ' ' JOB NO.
12/30/2009 710.06
PROJECT
Periodic Inspection
LOCATION
AROI (LM1.2-2.1) and AR03 (0.67-3.42)
CONTRACTOR OWNER
WEATHER TEMP. TIME ARR IVED TIME DEPARTED
Sunny 60 07:00AM !7:00PM
Rick Chen
and Larry Vidaurry (MGE)
Generally, no significant deficiencies were observed during the inspection. Trees up to 24 inches in diameter and heavy brush was observed in the western end of AR03 near the Rail Road crossing and the HW 160 bridge. Utility poles and abandoned railroad tiles were encountered within landside 15 feet easement. Moderate to severe shallow slope failures were caused by hand digging for foot stairs by homeless people under the HW 160 bridge. One 24-inch steel pipeline with a concrete box (4' tall x 6' wide embedded into slope; possibly abandoned) at about LM 2.9 was encountered. One pump station was encountered at about LM 2.3 with control valves on the waterside slope and concrete stairs on both sides. The animal control program by ARFCD was noticed in the fi eld with yellow flagging and cement grout.
RR and 1-80 Business HW crossing the levee were encountered in this levee segment. Minor erosion was noticed on the base of landside slope, street light poles, fences and trees beyond fences were encountered between RR and 1-80 Business. Piers of Monorail with chain link fences were encountered within the 15 feet landside easement at south of CA Expo. Trees of up to 30 inches in diameter were encountered on the ladnside slope and at toe. A pump with a 10- 12 inches steel pipe running thorough the levee was encountered at about LM 0.75. Access ramps and pipe gates were encountered at several locations.
COPIES TO
-------------FIELI> R.EPC>R. T
SIGNED DATE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page D-4
I
Hultgren -Tillis
Engineers
2221 Commerce Avenue, Suite A-1
Concord, California 94520-4987
Phone (925) 685-6300 • Fax (925) 685-6768
TO:
Jesse Hogan (USACE Sacramento District)
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED:
DATE ' I JOB NO.
I /4/2010 (MON) 710.06
PROJECT
Periodic Inspection
LOCATION
AR3B LM 0.0 to 3.5
CONTRACTOR OWNER
ARFCD US ACE WEATHER TEMP. TIME ARRIVED TIME DEPARTED
Sunny 60 08:30AM 1:30PM
PRESENT AT SITE
Ken Murphy (HTE)· Larry Vidaurry (MGE);
Richard Marek (ARFCD);
Field inspection were performed by Ken Murphy and Larry Vidaurry. Ken Murphy was walking the levee crest and operating the LIS; Larry Vidaurry was walking the waterside slope. Inspection was conducted between LM 0.0 to LM 3.5 of AR3B. The following observations were made:
VEGETATION: MANY TREES AT W/S TOE WITHIN 15 FEET VEG-FREE ZONE ANIMAL CONTROL: MANY RODENT HOLES FILLED; SOME LARGE HOLES REMAIN ENCROACHMENTS: SOME AREAS WHERE IRRIGATION AND LANSCAPING (BUSHES) HAVE BEEN PLANTED ON W/S SLOPE; TWO OR THREE PUMP STATIONS; NO DROP l.NLETS OR OTHER INTERIOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM FACILITIES OBSERVED; MANY BURIED UTILITIES NEAR SHERRIF'S ACADEMY STABILITY/GEOMETRY: W/S SLOPE GENERALLY INCLINED AT - 3: I; LEVEE VERY SHORT AT EASTERN EXTENT, MUCH TALLER TO WEST; NO MAJOR CRACKING, DEPRESSIONS OR OTHER PROBLEMS OBSERVED
COPIES TO
_____________ FIELI> R._EPC>R._ T
SIGNED DATE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page D-5
Hultgren -Tillis
Engineers
2221 Commerce Avenue, Suite A-1
Concord, California 94520-4987
Phone (925) 685-6300 • Fax (925) 685-6768
TO:
Jesse Hogan (USACE Sacramento District)
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED:
DATE j I JOB NO
01 /04/2010 710.06
PROJECT
Periodic Inspection
LOCATION
AR3B (0.70-4.04)
CONTRACTOR OWNER
WEATHER TEMP. TIME ARRIVED TIME DEPARTED
Coudy/Sunny 50 09:00AM !3 :30PM
PRESENT AT SITE
Rick Chen, Wilson Wong and Ken Murphy (HTE);
Larry Vidaurry (MGE) and Richard Marek (ARFCD);
Field inspection were performed by Rick Chen, Wilson Wong (Landside Crew), Ken Murphy, and Larry Vidaurry (Waterside Crew). Rick Chen was walking along the landside levee toe and Wilson Wong was driving the support truck and operating LIS along the levee crown. Larry Vidaurry was walking along the waterside levee toe and Ken Murphy was walking and operating LIS along the levee crown. Inspection was conducted starting from LM 0.7 to LM 4.04 (from·east to west) of AR3B. The levee segment between LM 0.0 and LM 0.7 located in private properties will be inspected later on after receiving permission from the property owners. Field inspection was conducted using two LIS' by the landside and waterside crews.
AR3B (LM 0.7 to LM 4.04):
Generally, no significant deficiencies were observed during the inspection. Two utility lines (gas and water) were observed running parallel to levee alignment in the easement area between Harrington Way and Jacob Ln. A fenced, abandoned concrete pad with manhole covers and wells was observed at around LM 0.8 in landside. Chain link/wooden fences and utility poles were observed within 15 feet levee easement from a distance of l 0 to 15 feet to toe. Minor to moderate erosion I rilling caused by foot traffic or man-cut stairs was observed on slope at few locations. Rodent holes were observed on both slopes, and the animal control program by ARFCD was noticed in the field with yellow flagging and cement grout. Pipe gates, access ramps, and concrete/wooden stairs were observed during the inspection. Trees, heavy brush, ivy and grass which were partially or completely blocking inspection were observed on the lands ide slope and easement near apartment complex east of the Watt Ave bridge. Two pump stations with control valves on the crown or near waterside hinge were encountered at about LM 1.55 and LM 3.6.
Utility lines (Chlorine and water) running thorough the levee and a water treatment house located within the landside easement were observed near Harrington Way. Levee height is getting shorter (less than I 0 feet) and flatter ( 4H: IV) when approaching to the eastern end.
COPIES TO
_____________ FIELI> :R..EP~:R.. T
SIGNED DATE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page D-6
I
Hultgren -Tillis
Engineers
2221 Commerce Avenue, Suite A-1
Concord, California 94520-4987
Phone (925) 685-6300 • Fax (925) 685-6768
TO:
Jesse Hogan (USACE Sacramento District)
DATE
01119/2010
PROJECT
Periodic Inspection
LOCATION
AR3B (0.0-0.7)
CONTRACTOR
WEATHER TEMP
Rainy 60
PRESENT AT SITE
Ed Hultgren, Rick Chen
JOB NO.
710.06
OWNER
TIME ARRIVED TIME DEPARTED
08:00AM I O:OOAM
and Wilson Wong(HTE):
Tim Kerr and Richard Marek (ARFCD);
Jesse Hogan (USACE)
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED:
Field inspection was performed by Rick Chen, Wilson Wong. Rick Chen was wa lking the levee and Wilson Wong was operating LIS. Inspection was conducted between LM 0.7 to LM 0.0 of AR3B. Majority of this levee section was located in private properties. Inspection was performed inside private prope1ties and on streets with the local sponsors (Tim Kerr and Richard Marek) and the USACE district engineer, Jesse Hogan.
Seven properties were inspected, including street numbers of 1628, 1630 of of McClaren Drive, and 1700, 1776, 1840, and 1809 of Jeffrey Lane. Abundance of encroachments were on the levee crown, slopes and within easement, including stairs, fences, drive ways, gates, landscaping, utility poles, manhole covers for sewers, utility/electrical boxes etc. Trees and heavy brush were all over the levee.
COPIES TO
FIELI> R..EP<::>R.. T -------------------------------------------
SIGNED DATE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page D-7
Hultgren- Tillis
Engineers
2221 Commerce Avenue, Suite A-1
Concord, California 94520-4987
Phone (925) 685-6300 • Fax (925) 685-6768
TO:
Jesse Hogan (USACE Sacramento District)
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED:
DATE ' , JOB NO.
01/21/2010 710.06
PROJECT
Periodic Inspection
LOCATION
AR3B (0.0-0.7)
CONTRACTOR OWNER
WEATHER TEMP. TIME ARRIVED TIME DEPARTED
Rainy 50 !3:00PM !6:00PM
Rick Chen, and Wilson Wong(HTE);
Tim Kerr and Richard Marek (ARFCD);
Jesse Hogan (USACE)
Field inspection was perfonned by Rick Chen, Wilson Wong. Rick Chen was walking the levee and Wilson Wong was operating LIS. Inspection was conducted between LM 0.7 to LM 0.0 of AR3B. Majority of this levee section was located in private properties. Inspection was performed inside private properties and on streets with the local sponsors (Tim Kerr and Richard Marek) and the USACE district engineer, Jesse Hogan.
Several properties were inspected, including street numbers of 1610, 1614, and 1700 ofMcClaren Drive and 1850 of Jeffrey Lane, and two properties on Claremont Road of which levee was at the backyard. Abundance of encroachments were on the levee crown, slopes and within easement, including stairs, fences, drive ways, gates, landscaping, utility poles, manhole covers for sewers, utility/electrical boxes, planter boxes/garden, play structures, swimming pool, short retaining walls, a slide gate control valve for a discharge pipe etc. Trees and heavy brush which completely blocking levee inspection were all over the levee. Levee is short with flat slopes (less than 5 feet tall and flatter than 4 H: IV).
COPIES TO
_____________ FIEL:O :R_EPC>:R_ T
SIGNED DATE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page D-8
I
Hultgren- Tillis
Engineers
2221 Commerce Avenue, Suite A-1
Concord, California 94520-4987
Phone (925) 685-6300 • Fax (925) 685-6768
TO:
Jesse Hogan (USACE Sacramento District)
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED:
DATE I JOB NO.
01/27/2010 710.06
PROJECT
Periodic Inspection
LOCATION
AR3B (0.0-0.7) CONTRACTOR OWNER
WEATHER TEMP. TIME ARRIVED TIME DEPARTED
Sunny 60 !3:00PM !6:00PM
Rick Chen, and Wilson Wong(HTE);
Tim Kerr and Richard Marek (ARFCD).
Field inspection was performed by Rick Chen, Wilson Wong. Rick Chen was walking the levee and Wilson Wong was operating LIS. Inspection was conducted between LM 0. 7 to LM 0.0 of AR3B. Majority of this levee section was located in private properties. Inspection was performed inside private properties and on streets with the local sponsors (Tim Kerr and Richard Marek).
Several properties were inspected, including street numbers of 1600, 1606, 1618, 1622, and 1632 of McClaren Drive of which levee is at front yards or drive ways and 1900 of Claremont Road of which levee is at the backyard.
Abundance of encroachments were on the levee crown, slopes and within easement, including stairs, fences, drive ways, gates, landscaping, utility poles, manhole covers for sewers, utility/electrical boxes, planter boxes/garden, play '-- structures, short retaining walls, storage structures, pump house for a pond etc. Trees and heavy brush which completely blocking levee inspection were all over the levee. Levee is short with flat slopes (less than 5 feet tall and flatter than 4H: 1 V). Rutting and depression was found on the crown. Minor to moderate erosion was found on slopes. Levee inspection was terminated at near the northeastern end of Coda Lane (the ARFCD boundary limit).
There was a discrepancy of the limit of this levee segment between ARFCD and USACE. The ARFCD boundary limit is adopted as the eastern end point of AR3B with a confirmation from the USACE district engineer, Jesse Hogan.
COPIES TO
_____________ FIELI> :R._EPC>:R._ T
SIGNED DATE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page D-9
Hultgren- Tillis
Engineers
2221 Commerce Avenue, Suite A-1
Concord, California 94520-4987
Phone (925) 685-6300 • Fax (925) 685-6768
TO:
Jesse Hogan (USACE Sacramento District)
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED:
DATE J I JOB NO.
2/8/2010 Varies
PROJECT
Periodic Inspection - Floodwalls
LOCATION
Varies
CONTRACTOR OWNER
WEATHER TEMP. TIM E ARRIVED TIME DEPARTED
Partially overcast 50 09:00AM 03:00PM
Greg Bickett (MGE), and Wilson Wong _(HTE)
Greg Bickett, a licensed structural engineer, performed structural inspection of the floodwall while Wilson Wong operated the LIS. The inspection of the individual floodwalls or wingwalls is listed chronologically below. 9:00AM to 9:30AM, System 2, AR06- Inspected wingwalls along the west and east sides of Rio Linda Blvd. No issues were found. Concrete surfaces were in good condition. No rebar exposed. Vegetation in the vicinity of the walls was acceptable.
9:45AM to 1 0:30AM, System 2, AR07- Inspected flood wall along the waterside hinge of levee segment AR07.
Floodwall varied in height. Concrete surfaces were in good condition. No exposed rebar was noted. Vegetation in the vicinity of the flood wall consisted of sod on the waterside slope. 1 0:35AM to 11 :20AM, System 1, ARO l -Inspected floodwall along the waterside hinge of levee segment ARO I.
Floodwall varied in height. Concrete surfaces were in good condition. No exposed rebar was noted. Vegetation in the vicinity of the floodwall consisted of sod on the waterside slope. 11 :30AM to II: 50 AM, System 4, AR04- Inspected wingwalls along the west and east sides of the pedestrian bridge crossing Mayhew Drain. No issues were found. Concrete surfaces in good condition. No exposed rebar. Vegetation in the vicinity of the wingwalls was approximately 6 to 12 inches high, pattially obstructing inspection at some locations along the wingwall.
I 2:00PM to !2:30PM, System 4, MA9A -Inspected floodwall at Clifs Marina. A section of the top of the floodwall is above ground. The southern portion of the flood wall that extends through the marina parking lot is flush with the ground surface. Plates cover receivers for attachment of modular raised flood wall units. Met with Kiet from USACE. Location of modular sections unknown.
I :OOPM to 3:OOPM, System 4, AR04- Inspected old floodwall along the northern boundary of Bell Acqua construction materials recycling plant. Floodwall was a discrete section (not tied directly into levee) and comprised the northern wall of a machine shop and storage building. Concrete SU!faces were older, but still were in good condition. Vegetation surrounding the wall ranged from grasses to trees. One tree on landside of wall had roots pushing up nearby concrete slab. Significant encroachments on the wall were noted due to the use of the area as a shop and storage building.
COPIES TO
-------------FIELI> R_EP~R_ T
SIGNED DATE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page D-10
I
Appendix E
Summary of Crack Surveys
(None included)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Appendix F
References
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
REFERENCES
AMERICAN RIVER (ARFCD) LEVEES
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Document Name File Name Author l)ocument Date
Geotechnical Report on American River Watershed
Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features Lower AR Watershed Implementation of WRDA 99.pdf US ACE Aug 2000 American River Sites
Memorandum for: PM-C (R. Nishio), Subject: Amencan Rtver W RDA 99 Common Features. Right Bank Levee Strengthening Near Jacob Lane
Memorandum for PM-C (R. Nishio).pdf US ACE Nov 2001
Draft Report, Geotechnical Report, American River Water~hed Implementation ofWRDA 99 Common Features, Reevaluation o Right Bank Near Jacob Lane
Operation and Maintenance Manunl, American River - Part No 2, Pumping Plant No. I and 2, American River Levee Project, Vol4 _ OMn1anua I_ AmericanR iverPart2.pdf USACE I 011511 959 California. Rt. Bank-State Fair grounds to Camtichael Bluffs Operation and Maintenance Manual. American River flood
Control Project, American River- Pan No. I, Levee Constructior Vo14 __ 0Mmanual_ AmericanRi verPart !.pdf USACE Not available from Cam1ichael BluiTs Downstream 8.3 Miles
Phase I Geotechnical Data Report (P I ()OR), Natomas East Main r2_20080703 _NEMDCEast_P I GDR.pdf URS Jun-08 Drainage Canal (NEMDC), East Study Area Supplement to Standard Operation and Maintenance Mnnual.
Sacramento River, Flood Control Project, Unit 118-Part No . 2, SAC_RDxx Unit 118Pt2_BkE_NatomasCniArcadeCrM Nonh Levee of Amencan River, East Levee of Nat om as Canal, US ACE Nov 1989 Botil Levees of Arcade Creek, South Levee of Linda Creek and agpieCrChnl.pdf Magpie Creek Diversion Channel
Supplemental Geotechnical Report, American River Watershed, Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features, Right Bank Geo. Report- WRDA 99 Common features. pdf US ACE Feb 2001 NearNEMDC
State of California,
NAOOOIJ A2008.pdf Department of Water Sept 2008
Resources
Permit #11927.pdf The Reclamation Board 1977
Pennit #14569.pdf The Reclamation Board 1987
Penn it 1115809.pdf The Reclamation Board 199 1
Permit # 16032.pdf The Reclamation Board 1992
Permit #16796.pdf The Reclamation Board 1997
Permit #18l2l.pdf The Reclamation Board 2006
Permit #2553.pdf The Reclamation Board 1957
Permit #4622.pdf The Reclamation Bonrd 1964
Permit #5776.pdf The Reclamation Board 1967
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page F-1
REFERENCES
AMERICAN RIVER (ARFCD) LEV EES
SACRAMENTO, CALI FORNIA
Document Name File Name Author Oocum('nt Date
Penmt #li064A.pdf The Reclamation Board 1969
Permit #6066.pdf The Reclamation Boord 1968
Permit #8759. pdf The Reclamation Board 1973
Project COE-25 1 K. Wahler Associates. pdf 1987
Sac_OM_StandardOM_ Manual.pdf USACE May 1955
Technical Review Memorandum - AR Levees. pdf URS 2007
Vicinity Mar- rump locations. pd f USACE 1957
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page F-2
Appendix G
Drawings
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
t i ....
... ~ ., ... I~ • ::• •
. I
' _, ___
,. __ , , ..
-.p ........ _.
. ~ ... ..,.,. ··:·1 _:.~:, . ..,.,..
.. ,;_' .. ·~ .. --
-~· --·.n.·. : ~
-~
...
.,
\
..:- /
I.
FOR 0 ' · · FFICIAL USE ONLY
.. . .::- ...:• .
- -·· ....... -,1
. ,. .. -· ..
·- -·-·-- '·· .. -."-
.- ~- :· ....... ··-~·· ~ .... ~-;--_.. .-,-,--... - .. - . ,. ' !---l·'··:. - ____ i
-. .-
-·. ~~- ... ~
j
--~ --....
Page G-l
!
I
. ... : '.·· ..... -
f ~U~ f .ftf "'~H\
! § ;;. _~~~- ;,;;:·. ~ ~~~~i~~ ~ ~:=::~
,
.
(
~ ... .....
---·
-- ~--
2--- --:.--
~-·-... ,-~p- ~ ~- ·-
·-"""~-· \ ~ .
FOR OFFICIAL USE L y
l>:.ll'" n-~n1 • ~;rn•
··--... ·-- ... ..:....~. ": :;. .. _.,:~;,...,.. ""':; -=· ....... - N
~
~ ,.~>o; t. £ ""<: ·.u.!
Page G-2
. -.
... ~ . ...... .. ...
-- ..... -·- .. - -. - ~-. ~- - ..... ~ ..
~ .. •~<>-·
(
........... -:
·- I •
.... _., ___ .... , . ..., , .. __ ,
'• , .. -··-··, ........ ...,. .. _ .... , __ ... ,.,. _.,_ ... _ ...... . _., ........... -.......... -.. .. __ ..... .,.. .. ~...::. :.:.·;··-·-:::r r:t/:.Q'.;::I:;' 1 , ·..;.:: •. - ..... ·- ·-•- I .. -----..
r 1- ..
I •~ '.--.
.f-'
~-
-~ • . 1·,;· ~;. ~ . . ...; i ··-· ~- J ... ·.l- .. ~ "[!.l ~:.. '~ ~;~. • ..rJ2.J ~:.....~ - /'_ j • •
.... ,, .
... J
I
~
rl·:~ .
r -· .. ~
-~~ ,._,:....._.
, ... ...fr.;_
1:'1·-- r·
(. ....
~·
q.·- &.---
' . ro:J. .. ', ~·-..,
................ ,
····.·
FOR OFFICIAL USE ON LY
·-·· .. ~ ..... . .. <II ~
, .... ...
... "' _.,.
.....• .. •• , f•l .. . .
'
. .. ........... ---_ , .. ,_.~u
#".- --.-· .. "Y._ . ~. ·---.-"' .--.•. .-
_,:::.:- --·-.J ---!
-:. -:_ -:t =.. . ;.. . "-; ' ;- -.-..--- ~_ .. .; • ...! _., . '
-L
Page G-3
~·-
..
\ ~ .... . -~
··
\
l
... __ ,
..--- ;
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLy
..... .,
,.,
.. -..··
·'-- :- • .:...,. ":__--•IV- - \ ... , ~·~- ... ~-~ ..... .. . .. , .. .. ·
'\
Page G-4
r
+-
1 :
-· '
l~""l ::···_
.; ~ -;;:: ::.~
---· -,
. -. -. -·- ~ ~ ... -_--: .
·-:r-;
•, ..
I'
~!_L ::;; ~ .. "':;''
J . .
__ ,
).
-:I;'! ' ''
.
ll
r ~r ..
--
u • •II• . '•
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY .. ---
.....
---
. ·
.., .
'·.
__ ·.:. .. ·.~.
\
,..,_ ...
,,o~ '
c.J.f ..
Page G-S
.I
1 .I
J
~
--- .,. ____ _ ,.,.,. .. "" .,. ..-~..,. __ .,. ~"' .. --.. #' ~ .. ..__..,.,.~--· __ , __ --.... $..··~...,.,._7 ..... ,,~,t .. ~;~ ., .. ~,.._, __ _ ,_ .. ~#-<~,._ : .. ~:.,,,.,· u ·.., , __..,_ :~~~~=~::; ~~":.7i~w= ~ 1.•'4M-''- • ~ ---·- ·~----
-~ --------,----- . !:..:' ~ ol • [l
·~ ____ ,._
:;..._ -loW.- .,
- ----.. ---?'"'· _!. ~~
,"' - ..... ....... .. /- . _ .... __ . - . -.....
0 .. ,
. .. .-
:..·•·
:-.---
.-
-·( - --b · •sc"'' r•
·.--._ l___ - . ------ ~"'c_- - -- =:z -=-
·~~
. ) ~
-A •
-·-,_
----:;:7
. .. - ~-. .P/ - -. ;:- ~- .:,.._ -=--=-: ~-z;. ... _ .,. .c ,_~,., ~f•U " ·:-l ........ _ ... _ ,, _..;..,. ____ ..,, . i I -- ,...,. """"""'.,__..-- ,A~-.........~ .. .._ i
__ ..:·:-:·:.:~:'~-----~.____- --;>?-~-----<"".....-::...------:¥r~-~,..~---~-~l- __ _- -----~- -'~:~---~ ...... _~ ... _:.""' __ _ ·r;- >:._
-~:__ ~:
_:;-=- ~· __ •.. ,, L .. ...._ •--.-.......,..
"'-: -,
~ _ i"l ~.- ~.--J~--~· Y --- ----· ---- --· -T~--- --r .. T"" __ ..
ST.l~
..- .t. ~··'// . --- ' .,.:.:::
"i~ ·---
~,:.J. St.CT liC$
.~ ... ~,.:: ·~. ---:·
FOR OFFICIAL USE. ONLY
-:• -....::.
..o~r
--.-... ""----.<•-• L 10 4, ,_. l.: ...
. ~- ~ ..... ":""" .... ,.'--' ~·
!·---- - ~.
- -r :l .:..\~ s. flO."tS
'"'" ---~- ~ .:. .,!\ r! aeAC" "'0!:£1(
~
.. l
.,
.
Page G-6
r.
(
_ ............... ~·~:
---- --~- --------
-----~.
· .. ·~·&
- -----·· .
...... . .ao~ ~'-·~· .J. , ... -~-.., _ _..,. -··I'·-----... -.···· .. .., -.... . ~-:.:"" :;.-:•;, ,. :::: ...... ,.:"' ..... ~ ~::·.~_..,.·- --.. '"..:: ... ~-· ··--··.,1'.' ' ... : .,:r~" : 1 - -
•-\-=-:-- :
l ----- - --- ---·,-- .6. ·~- .., .. 12 .. v""*''" L(vt:f ........ f
10.---
---..-- --J
...
...
..._..,.,----
A. • '.···· #_.,, . ... -
<~>''"''·--- ~
A "' t.?·t! '.:. J. · Hi,......._ ... ... ....-1!1.L
or ' I ~ . • ,"';· ~-'-' r P r,r.
a~ CC'C'!fM:Ct?
··-
Page G-7
=- --e=- 1 ~-----~ · . ·~:-·~.--~:> -.... -'lt._
......... .. ~· - ...... ..:.._ .... !.-- - ' I _!_ __
·: _,~ : .. .:...=-~- -~
.:-:-....._.
- -<, ~----~
- -'(
- 1- ··.! .... ,...,- . ---, ----
.... o-.•- ---:r----'-
·~ .
...
. -r~--r---------
•
" • - ·- ... - t ••
.; ~-- __ :;. ......- :----- ~
- ---- ·---:r~·
": ' ..
... ... oc ~
.. .... ·:-
l.
--l-.--;; ,,, ,, ·~t
. - .....
' """SAJ.. X<T!QM
~· ·~-· ~· "
... ~.·.___......,_.,
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
..-
-~~-.::!--=-.L ~.: _.. .. ~~:- ..
----l!L
I' •.
I .,..-~--~
:fZ::' -.:;;;:-__
... ..
·----. ., , ,.,.._ . '·· ---·- _..,..........,_
~ .. .. '/
.-
,--
Page G-8
J
r
....
_, •
~----
___ _:_~_
1'
--..:-:: -
.... ,
'I •.-, o ; ·- 1,. I
____ __:-- -- ~--
I ·· .,. .. ,· -~
.. ~.
~ ~l!.L . -~i.L!!
-'.
- . . ..... ~--~--_... --,~--7";""'""'',-.._.....;tJJ~
FOR OFFICIA L USE ONLY
:~ .. . ...
~.-r;.: ... -:~-
-~ .'; ~: .. ... :: ...... . -~ .. ~-""'~ ' l - ... ... ~ "--.:.:_'• ~:LF "-'--"--'-
- .· ,.
l
.~--
-,:p,----
iCI - - •
-4
-~~:~- •• <~~~· -------==-=~ "'..,....,..., n=·-·.z:..,·,·~ .. -•-f'-' "'oJ
I " •
- ----.. &.-...
,,.,, -~·
i
~--.. .,
.. _ .... , ~
·&--- ~-~ ..
' . 1
a.u.:.'a...
~
"""'·' t'' ,.
~··-
Page G-9
-~-~ ~ -------------------
~ I
I
I
. I
r t-
~-
'
--=----'!!!..---..:!!- --~
:,.--
· -·""!,
..
-----
... l - ~
--L-~ . ~ . ~ - - -'-~'"" . ~,.
. "':L:.... ,.-- ------r-~-·
•
.. ..... .. .
.......
---------
..
..
•
.. .. ,.____.._ - ~-~
H
.. .. ~.;..._"' ;) >
::-- --~--.,. • t:
. ]; _...,...:.!..,...~
.c....::- --=-~·,,
,.L. .F!:: .
. .,
.....
• w;;..·:;_ -<('{, • ~~"'-*"'?-..!:-
'I' ___ ,..
_..,.. ... -
. t
.:!..:~ ----
----- ~>--_
- - j . H
__ .,.; .. ~--
.._ ___ _,.._ ~---
,..,p,c.s.._ !tC'l- S
..::...:.• :-.. ,~,-r -.-'r-,c;o, (tlf~·
_,_ ..... t-.--- .. _ ~, __. .. ~, ...... .._
"- .:" ..... ..., ..:~'"'-""'"
~~-
""":
ry:-~~"Qot$
~£.-i:...L--~-~
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page G-1 0
> .qr:,-')0!.. ~ ..., ...., ._ :'E't"-rL ~
\ 'L ~ . • - • • •t)
-~ ~ .. =--=-
"' ~ ... ... ·
._
...--.
r
-< ... • rj
I J> . • . .. •J
H ( "'-" ,,.. , • ': ·; :"w,t
• • I
-· -p.-
~-
-
---
.C:·t;" ~- .J -=
- = I - .. , _ · ..
·~
--·- .. ···· ....
----- ~~'" ii_.~~~--~·
---~11 -- ·-rl i .~r--:•;;.--
--, 1
~--
!." ~Q e .....,..............,.,
-----····•..cw•
"""--- . -- _...... · ·"---· .- ----.;
~ ·"" C:"""" L' S"""" :j 3 ~ A'C _..._,..,, > --~......et N q-(1) 2
@ Ot1..0'T " 4'J;· "AS CONSTRJCTS:D " • j ,.,,
N"f-OL
.. X. .'/Ill·
'
_oo....,... ... _ --·--- ~~~~~~==~-~.±.~~.~.~.~-~~~ ----- HOOO CONTAOL "'OJ[CT '- 4- 432
., ~r
""",J - ~ Page G- Il
!
----=:____=:- - .
.... ,. .... ·"-'' /~~;;::.:=._ __ »Mt-
,.,- ..c,.,._,~--,1
""YP'CAh 2._Jf£
OI)''O~•l-r
--.......
. vo;:;_
-----·-..........
I
E>
I
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
II"L P• tt PLfN"" • ..,
u. """"
•As CCNSTRUC~ED"
Page G-13
l
\
i
·-~r ..-2~~~~~ I ' ·-- te.;,.,
l:: /k~ ~~~ ..
;.
"AS CONSTRUCTED•
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page G-I 5
'"" -,- -. . -. . . . . . . . , . : ' ... :
-- -·
--- --- ---
FLOAT CONT<,O~ SETT1NG (FVNT 1/< '2.)
-
~ ---- L
t
I
,. ·'I
_:·~ t
J -- '+-. -,,..-_-__ lJ I --<r--···1
"AS CQNSTRUCTED"
(
u . .. »GGY
~ ........ .,. ... .t.
\ I
I
oJ
....
ao,•L ... .... Q .. .., ....-..... f tJI> ~1..-T
7!
~
...,
·
__.. -......... -
____ .-------------------~·-~·__,.-·------ - Dt~P C .!_<CA l !,.. "AS CONSTRUCTED"
f\"C~ aog +' poc;r
"'" w ... u--· 111 _ _.. H ltB • •,. .. • yr , ,. }~i! PlAJJ99Lt{D ------ . Page G- 17
0 , ...... ~
--~~~~~~=-=--
. c:::-' ---
,-----_ -_-_-_-:.:.:!. --
._ ..... J ___________ j ' Q
"AS CONSTRUCTm"
I. 0Tt4.~
. - ----· ........ . ·-....... ~
0 9
-00-·1.- ----- ,.... ..... • -r r - , " -
-~~ -- *"' I- 4-432
~------------------------------------------ ~~FFlCIALU SEONt Page G- 18 ( (
FLOOR PLAN
,_., ··-·r..a"
r.:; -;. n- - I
l J . ·nnr.: - I il _,... _ __, ---. I r-
~ I t ~
~3 ! I
I I " I • l ... t i !-"·
J,.; r'---
J, ~~ ~.r
"~~£,.,..,...._ ~~
.SCC7r2J l!!!ltfl .-oll!le RQOW'
,.,, , ... ¢«-
~'
..... ,.,. bl =li=±=f•=''f.Ec=. -:t;=ff=f'=J'=l
Page G-1 9
A I :==-·'5.-. ..
£LCy
fC (Y UQQ[H WALL 11"•.....,..
£4£V 30UTtt WALL •...•.
ll ~~~~~~~~~Jf_~~~F~~ -f~==~~~======~~~g·~
NORTH .(.SOUTH WAL4 P£/NF.
EL£~' £.UT WA LL
··-,co·
=.tflli--'Ul
5fCT Qr·QG+r!twJ
···f'-tt'
3\:MP POCI<.!!T .D!!TAIL
~(-....... "><.tw'}
,XCT! Pd ,.,
;.•. I'D"
fi
. .,,_ ... _ -...,._. ... ·-...~.
'
a-S<-« a
seen~ :1·A ,-.. ~
4"·- t f if-~
·~ ,- p I f r f f •
AS CONSTRUCTED
ICMell.IOONL LCOIIIH!f'l'
~--- ...... l •• ~
'!J .....
~-
FLOOO CONTROl. PROJECT
Fotr Grounct. to Car~ Bluff•
MPIMO lt.NT S FOR INTERIOR DftAINAO£
PLANT N0.2
"
Page G-21
C<'AN{ J.>u.w.-.4Y 8r,w DUAILS .... .k~,
1---'---- -
......,__ ---· ......,.._ ~
DETAILS
T p A 5 H €.~ f./f DE TAIL 5
~ (:PAP,.•f !SUES
.,...~, ........ ~,
··~·· :t"·-..... ·---
. -- r r r r c r < , r
,,.,._ f·•\0"
HOIST BEAM SUPPORT DETAILS
&dl£ Sl"•:!L <l( lA IL ''Mt wp
_L_----,. __ .. --~!..·--
AS CONSTRUCTED
""sfQi{'GA TE D£ TAILS
age G·22
(
r '- .. -...
,, --·-·
fcHH~Hiij
;::=_;_-,~~
'?:::-:-~ .. 4'
I • _ ::.-:.:........ . ...,-=_, -__ =-~ .. -::,~ _./
· J ~· ._ ,
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
'- -
!1 it
iff
ti~ t ~ r. ~
u~:,ff. ::t ·-::::..~
~
t~:. ::4-' ~ ll ·--... . _
~J
~ ~:.:;;::;-• ~.; ~ I•
L'-M
Page G-23
"t~-IJITCN AIPT A JIIIIIT
17 /'HI# CJJ/f'T,..ACT
PBOFIL£ ..:.ou>_ .. _,,.._
C>
~
,.,.,..,.,"""',......__.
o~-
c. .,.._.. ..... L ...... .,.....,
l.!9fL q..........,.,,.,.,olo"'IJ6D6C.......
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ACC£55.fi*ft' PL,AN
PI/MP!NG !'!ANT N0. 2
SITE PLAN
7+9/tJ
Ff"M."')t
(\13 -07
C,•J"' f \S"2
e n..
SPINK •
CORP()Rit.TtON
Page G-24
(
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
f\ff/(b'(,riiW:'"f 11.-rrt.~ ...,,,. '-'...•
QF' f"V5TIIf!tr ;>:f'tiS
Page G-25
:~
- ---'~~- ....
·'0
..!::;:. C ITY OF S ACRAMENTO
-.;*;.• DEPARTMENT OF .. U_, T ILITIES
" "'--"""- , , IIIIID..-- ._ -
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
SECTION ED CITY OF SACRAMENTO - PUMP STATION SUMP 151
SITE PLAN l PROFILE 01'
DISCHARGE PIPELINE AND MISC. DETAILS
,..,_ l/~u
- -. :1_-
3 Page G-26
(
__ .. ------- -.,-:- --- - ~ -----
-·---_,.~.---~·---
i
,
-.
---- --------:--
--~
:'
/
/
-. -· -,
' . ---' I
:. "-~ . -.:1-... 1 "',""'· i
age G-27
c
f 01 CUIGIT •.au.
(X«Vjlft tOf' QA WIVK 441C1«1t 011 .__,.an~ •AU. ,..._TO~ ~ru.--.tPML.
1_........,...61CW"'OI'Jll.._\.(.,.
,\11[ 1N0WJ1. lilt C.JhCIGII MAl Q.lC:l t OPLa...-cuto-_.,.V($)_'1._ I.IIHIOII .-0\'U eDMtt-..::1~" «<IIITIIUI;TQI ........
tulltKfNOtiiiOII(TIIWI
t.! .c'fPt ,. ret I)
MJ,.OO.~~~·
ncs cU'Oifott..
A.WfliCAH R!)fR S!IA8Y Q!T<fi WALL W OETAfl
fM LE'\U C8QYit BQIOYAL HOT ycf!f JHAH 0 OM
·1110 1 fOK....r·
( 01' CUforl' •-.a.
I t-Co&UT'[ I Of' 0.) ICl'Pt M lll(M( • .___.,. CUtOI'P • "'-4 ~ ,. ' ~~"L&.-1"1JM&,.
_ __ , .. j ·-· _ __ ____ ."' _
):--.L....jt--1-t-f--( ,. 4 .,
AMEJICN1 faif8 Si tJBfti Wtgrr WAH (jtf' 006!
fOB Ll't£[ CROMI ftfMOYAI GRfAmt JbAN 0 fW · •I IOioC""C: • f .. "'"
rT"~;-·· ..
"""'
F
~ ,......OCTM.Itlllo)T~rMA"Taf'rw~ow:tiL_.I#'- su WfOf'' UU. ~TOll ~CT .. TWO IC~Ol"f ....
L ....... ....-:_...,..fiJI' CVJOI• . ...... -T&u,.&I'Ool _ ....
Mload.n:a • ,.._ rm..o 10 AVOO anucn..:• ~ .u ~
~.u;piV.ILW[IOIQ.OIUIII:L nc1.....,..~li»UoU.Iil
&f TOCt.CIIIIPIIACOI 0C L('I'U
tiC M.LOW...a...,_ 01 ~VlCJII'I • .U. Mf"'-L4f'IOI'Iot 'JME hOitAIIO ~llt.fwrt ....u..&l-•r.aa .,.._ •. ..,,a., ~
nt.. ... to ·~•·MoO....: .. WIDI(lf ....._ Lt:wt.l[ c-o- 111 ur~h ~ct .. C:uJJWA•aU:A'tiiOI .,.1..UDICI[ ... P'QIIIU al IIC U'Ytl .11151 ~III(U ...,OOWIIf ~Oif14WOA.A'nQIII
•LOC.Uf CVIO"' •M.L Hni'UII wau._._.,..,..L.....:Iil~J
l
.. ..,
AJIQWAII£ RAHG£ Of' CUTOff WAi l
!N$IN I &JK'ti ALONC nt: ,w(BICNf Bl\fB -1101 roce.u ·
1 ...... anorr •AU
1 LAHOSIOE
SI.OPE
f01UU ~ ::= ---i
WATERSIOE
SLOPE
.... , ••cvrOPTw..._L
..., .... ..,_ ~"" -
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
- OYU!t.AP PRtn..£ W:W -
CUTQfT wau O\f'81 "P (eft CONHfCIIIC TWO !1U.O!NC:S · MIT JOI(~l 1 Page G-28
c
(
.................. t(CTION,. n.t.IOI[JS ~ ·--
--"" PJlfWIMOUVU
"'"""
.................. ) SIC noN. TICXIC"S.S )
._. (_
&AW CV110
ni..LOU1H
euTOf'' """" •au.
F
(
Jl!lli;
l , WU£1ttl)( 11N3(fl'<*1' "~ ll R[~T .......
~..._ 0t1 OfHDI J'o.tl Of DI:YD.twiEJfl.IIK COWifltUCTI(MI b)Ml•.U.t.T .U ...ec PO.f.
Z. Tllft Dll~ .. MOt ""'-llr;.41U '011 CUT Of'' •ALl. O'l'faAfl. ta: CUTO,., WALl,. OV[..._., r011 COtiHEC T ... TWOIC.6CIMGSIII(faa,...
!!( QINJ f 86NG[ 'f OIDli "' W$1Ali6TIOP! IIJM • IIOft•k..U · OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page G-29
- ------- -----· - - - - - -- - - --- - - - ·-
-· . -- ~
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
- ; -··T • . j.. _ • • - -
-
••·r--
-------- --
' ---- ------ . -------------------- _ _ ___ _ _ __ • _ __.__ _____ !- _,- ·- f.. _:::-:_ - ---;! · ---
76 S ACRAMENTO AREA FLOOO CONTROL AGENCY
ARCADE CREEK LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS, UNIT 1
PL.M AND Pli!OFIL.E SOUTH U:~E
ST A.. SSI•TO TO SU •. T$.00
"
Page G-30
\
!Ill"* :::-.. " l'l'C<¢\- _,
-; --~-
1 ---,:.-
- -
(
FOR OFFICIA L USE ONLY
SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY
ARCADE CREEK LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS, UNIT 1
PL.AM AICI PftOFILE SOUT1f LEVEE
ST A.. r&.OO TO ST A.. 86+00
Page G-3 1
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page G-32
(
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page G-33
.... _/ Z.·~ ~
_J-:."" ----.
.~ , .. (, ..... ':"
FOR OFFICJAL USE ONLY Page G-34
Q=Y.2~~0TECTION DETAIL A
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
SACRA~NTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY
ARCADE CREEK LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS, UNIT 1
T'TPtCAL STONE Pf'O'nCTlON D£T All$
Page G-35
~:;~
-- !.
!l!:'..r- ~~
(J.;STO~~. PROTECTION DETAIL
-- . -...
1 ; ' ' > I .' =·-· · ..
I ! I
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page G-36
,.
(
__ · ____ c= _ : ·:::.. -~ . -· -------------- 40 ______,i_ :........:....::_-:-..:...:z.::_:-: f- ~ _-.-- ::· _-- ---· -:- ---_--_ r--
i=-~:,. ... .;t· t::= I ---t
! ----1----'-
f----t-------J.-
"'
•
.j ••
--
t:==:::::S -, --::. .
~--- -~ :~ :- ---'.
ct----
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
, .. . -
-sr.irT!ON ici..oo :·- ·x....--=-+.
- -=r.-·
· •. · - - !TATION -715•00 ·
SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY
ARCADE CREEK LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS, UNIT 1
SOUTH LEVEf CROSS SECTIO"S
STA. 7t.OO TO STA. 80..00
Page G-37
~-'
,. 1:= ----,--
r-~~~~-----~----- -~~~--~---~~-_--~·-~~------~~+----.:~~~-~--------~-:- -- -~ ' ____ +-~--~---~~7L·L_'--~ t-- ~: ----~-; ,. '==:- ~=~-='= -~£-=~~_} : : :.. -(::.. . .±...· . - . -! . - / I . - ,---~-' :! . ~~-; -·-~-c:~--=----+i _________ +----------- ------'- ----t-"'-i r-~~--r~--~~-----~:----·~~-=----,· -~~-:~~·=_ :~:- --------~~--------------+-------~--+-------------~------·-----r- " ;;=-~_: ___ -;:__ --=-~ -- _t :: ::· :t-__ L. :_.:: _ _:-.:_7 ~ == -- . . -: ,-- i ~=-~___Fjf__ ::.__. -___:~:_:_ TAT~~~ · -""T=--:-- -~~ -:._ =~- -~ STAT~N aa;oo- ·-· ---..:-=-·:..:__·.:.:,_ __ -- ~---iTATiON 8z.:-oo ~ ~~~---
"'''llil
r--1·
STNTlOft-&2+00
-I
- . --==
-:- ER' --·""""-- . ..::... = 1-.1:1· -.:--, ~ - _ _:: - .i-=- I -, :::::;: --::=-\C: -:
=r cc.=;=-~~- =:L----' ---
/- : j_---
~:___,--. ~·
---1----
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
f::=:--· c . ~:tr_ -:=-:
~ =--=--~--~~=- ~! --
SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY
ARCADE CREEK LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS, UNIT 1
SOUTH LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS
ST A. 82+00 TO ST A. 82•00
Page G-3 8
.. ,.--+--
"'
(
--,
-.
_;.-_: J .. - I _,
----- --------+-----'-----"''---1
-!
L - \,. .
-:;7:
-f:.: --~ F ;z; -1---->-- - ··?"'-"'-~:--.--+- -+ .. r--,-- _:, -'-.:
--+--_
--l
::.. - --- .::1=::.=.:::--- -_ .. ~
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
~--
- srAfroN--10c.o0 -- .. . - . . --1- . -· -----·- --LLIIEl. --.:..-- . --1--c,: ..
~~-::.
-· (~..: r-----r-----:: - :c -/ .· -1 \.c· :: ::·c·:·: -_:.· .-~~- ¥:- :~ ~
+=Y.~-:~- _- ~~ ·: F J~-
: :::t - ·:::': .--
·- --. ...;
SACRAMENTO AREA FlOOD CONTROL AGENCY
ARCADE CREEK lEVEE IMPROVEMENTS, UNIT 1
SOUTH LEVEE CROSS SECTIONS
ST 4. 'i&•OO TO S1 A. ,0...00
Page G-39
F-:-J-~-- F-~-t_:~:.:---T :~-~ ---: _ __:~ -- ~-~-
F-~-=--+-=-:T" -,:~.,:=.;, 11;~ --~ -~-- -- -+~- ~~~ STATioN T12 +00· ;:=---;:-=:::£=:::~-~ >-~ -. -·:- -~:: :- -:-_':'--:.r :o . - -
JO -t-·
- ·+ - -.~i:-=-c:~~ --
-- : -=t=-- -r- sa-reett-loe.oo =+=-
: ::':f -
----T
STAnoiiruo.oo
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
' ., sTATia:! ~ ~-
- ·- ------------ " ---- - - ~
"-·_:j
-- / -t:I::-t:::-=:-• .., ... - .+--\:----- -- __ :.::::::
=- . ___:__._____ ~-----_--'-_-:-::~-- ):_ --'-:::\ __ · -~~ ,. '---.• ~=:=:=:____ :_-:-:j
SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY
ARCADE CREEK LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS, UNIT 1
SOUTH LEVEE CROSS SECTlONS
ST A. 1011..00 TO S'T A.. TlS+OO
.... .. . 10' _,.,. ,,.
Page G-40
(
............... • • • •• • . •··• ---- ----··-·------------------- ----, I I
_L ·~-+- ________ _ _ ~_
Woi•Sicl• I I l&IW!Siole
-~~~~-' lolobo_..allll~
fWSE EX!SllNQ. EMBANIO.!ENT
TYPICAL SECTIONS. SOUTH DRY· CREEK LEVEE
TYPICAL SECTION
solflli ARC~pg_¢ji~~K lEVEE
.,~~)'~
TYF.I!:l\!...SJ;&IJO..tf
ARCADE CHEEK llERM
~-..eau..
1N!f; t.ocatm o/ the feocf. RNtlrr.oe to the Btnn. va,e$.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
JYP1CAJ,. SECTION
NORTH ARCADE CREEK LEVEE
~.....!2..l:ll 'lll ~
SAFCA LOCAl PROJECT
DRY and ARCADE CREEl' LEVEES
TYPICAl SECTION'S
I
I
Page G-41
I
!
!
I
EXISTING LEVEE PRORLE
JOil- IU'1CIIA
2l1'U-DO"'OU.
""'"'"' COtUI NCIJ DltAS<II JIQ..D ¥On .--~ow.
Dl1- IS~CMA
:a
""
1'U- llO'lDrll COIIPI(T[ (H(:•K:O C:O.A.O ,., nr:lo ....... lltl- ~1Drol
PLAN VIEW
SECTION
I
il
II
FOR OFFICIAl IJSE ON! y
O(N(RIII. NO't[':t
(M)C~ftSMii(N
looCfP1, IMJ ,.,UI fO ToC O:."LIIf'QIIIIoM 114Tl C~l[
1T$U._. lOtC: ._ HN> &l.>tl
T..SC*1~ OWoloS
NODuetO fRc.. otil-..c. l't()T~tw.T£DO.l'··
_ ... t"U.YW* Qll(t~
~) 13.'5 o-100 U.!. 0·1'01) U) flooJOO .., ~
0·.00 ~
1. ~~-;;o;o;.,_--....;.
?C:IE1 ... ~C-:30.
t u vrun IIID.OCAr.c:MS ~ M<" .,.,
.) CQIIIS~ni)JII Ro- II
LNa CJIIOilllii(III..T r(Jit
St" o<n:s TO $1._ t-0-'9-
• ~ Nit IS 01n:crm (X)MJ.I(ftl; orrc:urs P'nD
lltiEPA[S[NT.t.fllro!'[ TO •
~tn,.,.,f'P'IED
" \
CIIAPMIC $CAL€
!'age G-43
s
FOR OFFICI L USE ONLY
z
i
5 ;
~NOTit
~C~'I't'......: .. tCt(M "'ftC' IIIUI.A 10 TIC UliC:IIttM STAT[ CQCIIIII)NAT[ '5l1Tt\l ltJtC ,~.,, SUM"t W.IIU,.~
oc•n. ......... ,,.Tlll'l.l
.. ,..
tl.'-
""""' ..... 0•>00 ..... ..... .... o-700 ., ... .. - ....
CC»r4l-..cror. ..-)rt$>
L CClGfllt\.!Cr 1UIItY •IC.J. ro lr€~11'1&ASS..OWX~
stt ~ ..... I. D[T...,.S OM
~C-50.
l' SU UT1,1t'l IIQ.OCAtli;JG ON
~"U l
:l ~I'IQirliiiiQ.r~4,(¥'Q:
~ CM..T ra- 'S'"- o--~
ST .... I·Oo'f._
"
\
GAAI'H I C SCAt. E
~ !ij
i- I
hi
-
I$! ~ ;§
~~~ I
!Ut !-
§ i
(
1: ..
~
II
~lll.II01"[S!
GRI()~Al[SIIRfN
...: ratS lrfC) Rtf Cit to nc CA..f'Qibu. STAl[ ~AT(
!; ftW aJK I. Nli(l ltlftl
MS ~TJo(JIIl<)lO ·~ PROOVC
,..,1~0Af£t)G £0 r~ ~ 1-M
C'CIIGTRUC11CitNOm·
t CONSTifllCT Sl\.ftl' • .atJ. 1'0 11COI:P"I'N1AS~~
5Q" 51....,. W#IILL «T•S ON 51-«1' C-10.
2. 1ft UflJN' ll£\.otA.noN! OH
ga-r u-2
.l. ntQw s:r .... H>49 11) ~fA 4•lS0
flO[' 1$ N() <XlNSmucTlON
"""" 4. C(lllS'TfaJ':fQol ROW rs t.£'t([
~o-._"''f'QIItS"TA.OoO~
ro su .. !).
"
\
GRIJitii C SCALE
c
I
C.Ct«tt:ac. JIIOT[S
(M)C~IUMII(Iill
oC~tltS MoO llll1P '0 hC Colll#ObM ~r Tt ~n
STI101 lCtC L IUIO U/tl
CONSTMJCTtON t.alT[
1., f'*lW IU.. l-049 TO lfA. .. l)O
n«JJIIIISHO~TII»> -
i
I I.
j
' I
i
;
(
c
Qt~AC, N)TU.
CAO~t('S .""(• lll(rVtS /ltiCI ltUCII t O fl4 UV'~ tUTt QOOIIOM.fll'[ SY~ l[u ~ •, IU() &)Ttl fH'S l)tTlo('III'WOTO ._.,_
~fllelu.tl.~
~tOCIIW'M"f QATm Ool·M
I!!!IZ .
~
.............. ~
S IOL ~T'OI
. $ --P•:uoc;ofr1'.1t
~NO~
\. riiOW IrA. t-049 10 $To\,. •·liKI fiCN: IS fiiiO COOl$ TIIIJC noM 1. - 1111 Uf'UT'I' JIC.OC..,1'113N) 01'1
..UTU.01
liDl
~
f;ONIMlUCfOI MOtQ-
~ trrs ~,.,.:.~ ...UT ~ •c..L DrT ... s cw
~ ::X,.~ ~nQMS OM ~~ • e ).. =ST ... )-04.• TO S:l ... ··$ ~ IS PC) COISTll\.CTOf fi Qi ¥ I hl
- ~~l~ :iP
CR.A.PtfiC SCM.£ iH ~ HU I i
i
~
t
I
I
B
'·
8CfJIIll .. seT .. Co< c ~
&J ~~111M ' tU.fTfiG ~ , ..... SNilo
cj:;!~-~~~·~.~~: ~ -!:PF..r~ c ! ...
... r: "l_ !.J& SIAIBS@ ,q ~ ·-
""1'E'
ltOIJYE AM1 RECCHSTRUC T COIICR£ n STAIRS AT '$TA1Ctt 6 ... TS LOCAT!D (II P'LAM SI££T C-7.
CDCJIIIl ~ns.
c:.>C~l[S.Ifi!.R
...:TD!'S ~H> mu ro nc CJC.•~f1'AT'(~T(
!i.Y\1'[ Z~I.Id()8)1111
7~ IMII' loftTS Tt< HAnc:.. ~l.C"''IS t$ "«~ rOR Olllrrd"'PIOfO wrJo rr OGitiUIIT*C t.tl:nclDS ~~
~
A
s 'S(k. ~Obl'O<I
.. ~_,
-$ ....,. """"
~~~~~~=;~ OI'VN ""'"""- il o---o ~~~
sr&TtON ..,.,.
,...,..,.,
....
e.• .... •.. .... •..
OOMSTN.ICI"DD NOT'D
1 OJNS.TJUCT 'AUI¥i"'' • AU. Tl) TIC DP"T'HS A3 SN)W II80¥L sa ';l.JMT • ..._l on......s CN -4- , Z.. ~ VTUTT ftfl.OC.a.1lON$ ON 9«T o-3
/
C.RAPH IC SC AL£
..
t
;
~
I
' • '
Q(N(I'.,., ~l(~·
~ COQII[lM.Ll[S Mil .. w(tr ~ M1C ~ f O n.( ( 4.ti'O"N..._ S lA T( C: QOIIIICIIrf .. T[ ST11t w l'Otft. • ».ooe &lftl
l""'f:#''~l OWAS
~to '~.-.[ Jiut
9t<)l~~ CU. I[DIID l ..
..
Sl ""0"\<*1'01
..
$ 0(01"10'1
V'UI"Y~J'OI
~-o ~~~~.~OE
Q. IIU.~(
St""f'(lfol
D[P1H
..... .,
·- ... ··- '""' , . .,. ... .,.
_,..
... ...
'""'
C'OMSI'fU:nt'IN NOf[S,.
I CON'Sni..JCT st.......-r W4C.,l tO fK ocPTWS ...S~...eovt. !II 'SL~ w.cu.. O(TAl.1 ON SI<('T , .,,
1 GU"'-'l""''llh.OC'""TI)Ird(»>
~ru-~
I
GAAPI-41 C SCAL.t
II
. ~
b
~~~ d
iii
i" i ~b
- OJ
:l~ ~
)"'! <l
di I
;u: !'-
0 e
C(M:It ..... lo()T(~
OIIO~Ttsll/ll. .. ~l[JioS AM) ftUOI' TO 11< CUOfNA SfAlt COOIIDIU.I'I $'1"$l(W ZIOH( 1. IUD Mrt1 T ... Oil~TO•..S
"OOUC(DftiiOU ~
II'IC'10I:JitJ#tit'f OA1UI D-2·11
..lli£!!L E!!m ~
... """"
$
. ~_.
• IIM010CXW1DI'
STAfOII
.. ,.,. ··lOO •·J4l
.......
,....,
,.,..,
,...,.
.. ,.,.
... ....
...
.. """"·
....
... ....
... ~naMMOTrl
1 COt41'11LC1' Slt.a'T •ALL TO fl<O(.P'T'MS .t6 ~..eovt 1(1 A.t.a'V •IIU. Dfl..U OM ~fC·•t
Cil~ IC SCAL£
c
"
~II() [S>
CillO (OQIIImMf(J, #Ill( ~
~tC*S ~ t(.ttlt fO ,,_
(J(I~ Sl"ft (~tl
:n71DI zoe ._....., .,...,
*-01'\~'I'II:M
·-"""' • fllloiOI'Q CDITP
.,.,...........,..., --o ~~~
CONITMIC"tOI IIOTD
L~fiiU(f$&...-Y WILI.f O
ftC D[P'nO AS ,.,_. 40'W't. '5U Sl,Uitt •AU. Q[hU a. 5JICX1 , •• , t Itt Ofi.JT'f fiO.()eA~ l»f
MJ:rv-).
) SU ?[C lrtC&t I ()I 01~.
t,t.~ 101 (.l.l 1-."f'O ~T.t.eJC
«.v..:ct.ss..
f'di.&.C*~ &Hll['$. tO STAGGIMC. dUS aT lo10C). ,._, 1>1() tO-.:oo 111 ~ GA~IC SC-.t.L.£
~ -~· PI
!M
-
r· f ,t:i-
~ ii~ L ~~~
;u: I!!
(
i
&
y
t
• I
I
. f
CDCJtllt. MOTU
GM)C~.Aoll!.,
ICitltli ......0 ~ 10 TMt CA, ....... ,UI[~T[
SY~l[w ZONE: 1. ...0 61191
~
m!lllo
A
~
s ~tl9'\.0IItt.f011
• a.nu. II'OffT
$ fWITO axrD:
'" ......,...,
CONSTIIlU("TION NO~
COfGIIIUCT 5U.M'I' ""'.tU. IO IK. IIIPI'WS ..S SKMN "*"'L so: Sl.I.MT •-.J.. or:r.-...s c:tc 5fo«T C·•t.
JJNJIHO ICA MOlD>
1 .~(:(:('$$ TO n«: ST.a.cw::: «A »w.L ee:: r~tQw
(nwf WAY.
l. sa un.m ltll.OC.AnQII.I!: OM 114rf u-l.
.
GRAPtlJC
~ SCALE
l;j
~ ~ " §ii p
hi I
-
( ~~! u"-
~ ~
1-
iH t·u i§ i
3 ~
l
• I
. f
t;.CJIO<t. MOTtS>
~c::DQIIEaiiA.1t ..... r.«TVI'S AIC) 1111UtJ TO Tlol:
'fTSf(MilOIC,IU()&Vf!l ~11'""~''
TMS OlltfHOII'I«<JO w,.,s
~0..~-2-M
Z!!!!l!o~
~
• s ... ....
_ ,..,__,.,.. _,
$ ...,.._,...
""'"~""' .. ~
,, ... ft~Clt!~ ·-,.._
. :: ...., .. ..., ·-
..,....
a€TOS>
t:
:::
....
... ... a.d~TDI 101~~
CCNSTSk.ICT 'iU,,ttt'f •....u. 10 ~CIO"nc AS g..()wN .-.,ovr. ~TC_,.
t stt UT1.J1"'1' IIQ.OCA110NS ON _,.,.,
), AOOtfiCIUL f¥'-'Y•Y I~ 1'-
.. otl lllfO TO lr-.o, nc ... IIIC.~A(( .
()ICAw&ttO 'llotr-J..._ 9UU
• wtll.t.O S\01 nu, t nc l~ JIIIUI'JLI flOW tT•.
a ... )a to If&. '"""'" FL.Ati"())S. C:CWCIIIIIIUCI
ror-..t.OUCilAO(•s
ntaa.IPCO ·~ T'IC S.UTtO SUTI(IIl •
.
\
\
GRAPHIC $CAL[
.
.
~
I' ~ • I . ~
• i
. l
i
•
c
e
QOVIA. MOrts
G'IIIOC~f(S...._.,
IIIII: IotS ~ ltUP 10 bC e.ttl".....,,,.,t~
'$",$1'[ .. ~ .. N.Ou.-tdl
T..S~lOw~
PfiiDC:uet_Ofto..~
~10Cioiii'WY DA1l'D '0-1-tl
.uws._
I:!!S. JIISIII!Dii!!..
A """'
s .. OGil,.Obi"'O
• 4 --- l'tC)tO Cl)nOt
..,.,.._......,.... ..............
""" ~~.~
5UM'J •-u. IJrttOI"U
-·· ....,... 0·100 .... HOO ... HOO ... ..... .... ..... ..... .. ...
~m\tTUT'I' cnOCAilOMS.c. 94J'T ll-},
). ~~='~c:::?~~ IS .. OdiM.O ro Ll\'11. TIC ~I*' SUif'..c:(. tii[.STOI( ~ lCI LIISfl~ ~II.( Me atc:I$S Kn'l~
\
~ ,, J!
_ I, ~ ,, ;l 1 3 u
~IC)fU:
c-o (()(CINAff~ - .. llo1(1£M, ~ ftUOt 10 l.C c,.o,urQIIINAif,ut~tt STSfCw lOIC. 1......0 l.lttt
TI'ISOII!~lO•.t.S
~f~,o,[Jitl.tt.j_
p.QIIJQIIUifltn' Dlo.Y(l) '0-2··
[!!!!!!,~
~
... .
s JOL~(JIW'IOio
• .. IIH)l'OCOftD _"""'
""""'.........,..""' .. .......X•.at.NJJ
~~~~ii~ ~ ~~~~~~~ii~~~~~ ~~:P-.Ii?l:.;;.-..3 o- m
-o -~~~-~ ~ ~ BBllm ~~
c;(~AC.JttH[S.
eAO COOftON,I.ltS -"''E lflj ..,.,ltl ltC .,-o lO ~
C.ot. .. ~ST..,Tt~
'~""' 1.,.._ ... ..0 &)Jtl
1M$ ORfr<lfi'HOIO Will$
~O'JIO,I~
....07~ (l.t.TQ) 11)-1-t&
!!'!e.~
~
...
1$1 .... """""""' .. .,.,..,_ _, $ ·o~
"""'_..,._. .... o- -o ~~~~«
CO..SlfiUCT)QH Hl)l'($
, ctWd Tla.ICt Jill,JM"f • ALL to TlCCIO"nf.!A$~~
SU ~~ w,.y, IXfM.1 OH ~~ C~4S.
3()151'-.o~--~
f'ACiol HOlt TO SIA. 11-100
OCU'l -<U NOTlD.
c
a
i
t
'
OOC"-"'l HOTUGI'OC~~IIICH
-c:rtl'S IIH)IIII(TO lQ ~
CAIOIINA ~l'.,lt C"QQOIIDu.lt ""fOil lOtC I.IIW> alo't1 floCCIIr ~TO•AI
~~~;t:o"1,.z ~&
"""" lfATION a.t1'D'SI
~~~lilil\1 .........
,__ .... t--17$ ...
~J/EZPI!!CI'J:ArD'Qir!/0
~
•·0'1 U.2 Ul '0·100 z::l 'IO•Iii!ICt fl7
C(ltrStflu:liQM NC)1('So
1 CONSNU:T ~~ WJC.L TO
nc O[tme AS :~HDWYo~ .e:M. 'i['( 'Sli,IIIJIII"f •.tt.L O[r..._s cw '"''' .. l S[[ U"-.~Tl lO.OC...~ t».1 ?Q.I U• )
I
'
t
I
~
I
• •
c
a:c~t.~~. ...:IU:1il
omc~TtSMIH
wr:ttiiii'J...., tl(f(Jt 10 nc e,ac. .. ~St&I'(OOOIIII)M.o.T( 1Y11Dol•l'OJIC• 'NIIO t;).tf'
t..S CllltlHQIIIIooi6TO •-'S ~Of"lbiiii(1Wrl.
....:)T(l(j:lt ..... n O.TCD ~.}·tl
l!!m
~
~
... """' s ,.,.,.ICIP\.OaloftON
... ...._ ..... • lltOtO CINIOt
~ ururt~onao.
Oo .....G ~~~O(
COH'S~hON WOTU-
~~Ilii~~~;:;J L ~~~~A.~ u 1Uitft"r Wof!U. DtT4,.$ ON
-.cl"l C·••
2 sa; urun I'IO.OC:AfiOid
<JI!tG"l tl-l.
~,i;,E!ir:r:~~ ~ ~~ .. ~ ";',.. ~OM~C·S2
sr~M.~o..Ott
~SS TO f1lll' ~T.I(;:IC
llifiA~KNtOY
MOIIII ....... A¥1:.
i
!
'
.
J
<C:l!CA'Ai. N01U
CJIDIXIQIIIDII.1UNiti.M
toi(1P'S .IHD ..:ru 10 nc CII.."OIIMA S1Af( ~f(
'JT'fl'[W ZOIC 1 • ...0 S)Jt:l
n.s<:~~t~rowA.J --=--..- IM)l'OCbPW'I' Ooi.ICD 1).1
·M
!!!!!!!.~
~
•
$tot.~f'OI
$ . --ft«O COI1D
.....,..~
.. -..,.orw.II,ICII
o--a ~~;.-~
STAJ"Of
.. ...,. ......,
...... .. ...... -
n-ooo .. --
oc.- """" ,._,
....
.. ._, .
._,
.. . ...
CON$l~tt0'f'Qo
~rtu.Jillt"r .. Al..TO
~ct:"f'M!AS~~
m 'Sl.lJI!'tl' •.IU ocr .... s 0111 ~1C·6f.
2. W% 1/TVTT llll.OCAf'IONS 0111
$)U"T u-).
c
6 ~MOT[1
~(OCC)Iru.TH~tl
U(ftJI'S~~ Of~
CA._.OftN,.t.,-f.t..I(~.4T(.
SVSTtu lOW I.IW) altfl
~O«notOPHQfO".II$
NQOUCt'O rliOol oi(IIW.
PrOl~ cw.rm lt)-'J·M
~~
~
4 un.m6) XL~toc'
• (OIInlO..JI(IIIn'
• ~f'Oeontlll
"""""""""""""' o- ~~~~-i"
!l.UhON
..,..,.
liC.TtR'Sl ., . ..,. .._, ,,_
...... "'' .... 11-1411 ""' '">00 ... 11 •.00 '"'
ctlt~S"T'RIXJIOII M)~
l c:tJM7TiltUCT ... ~ Wll!U. TO
set
M CPTHS
'SI.J.N AS W~L
SHOWN otT..._$ ~
l)t.l
$t-UT C.·•t.
c
CCiiUul. MDll.~
:04~~~-: .. CA.' 01NA PAll COQIIOKAJ'f
~,sttv l()lll[ . •.o a11t1
T't4S (llrno(lf'M)10 •..S """""""''-.._ f'te10Qit.fiPwT QAf[l) ll>l-tl TI1IS w# W0:'' f"( -Tl()t.ft. 11~0#.-ccurtJCYIQit
Dff~ID~ft
IIHOrOCJt-.&«"~ Wl'n.xK
CCNil'ltUC"r'Of e.310
1 . c::t»~S,...;T 'SllMT WAI.l 10
M OCP~ oilS 9<JIIW .JI80r<IL w:J: IL.f.M'Y WJU Ol:f....S Ot4 ?CIT c·•,
c
a
A
' f
CfiCAM 1C)t11
e:f'Js«::-£ ~ ~ .. ~(IIIINA'J1A1[~fT
SYS1Dol fN I. JrUO &lo'tl
TM& o-r~ro •A$ NiiOOuiXO ,~ .uw... ~OI'.TC00.1·tl
su,M'r •""- MQf'U
.......... ...... Kf- ..... .. ·- ..·- .... """"" .., l:t•tOO ... ~ (tiiiSflk.C:hOM M)ft$1
ltcltiSf'-..ti'SJ..~•~IO
~ O(J>TH$ A$ 9<NN 40Yf..
.r:
~!; "'"""""' .. AU. on....s ON .... ,
1. S[[ U11L.Tl'r liiEI..O::..Tl!lt6 ON
~fu-l..
.~
GR~I C SCAI..£.
!d
~ y
iii
hrl
-
f . ~~! ~
ii~
~· I HU t i
c
(;[lii(JUil M0f{'5:
Ci*O~tn .lr!llll("'
..crotS M~:J 1tt101 10 nc c"•o-u. $,t.rt ~·t: S'Sibr Mr111: ._.....o &l.ftt THIS a-rt<JI'IC)10 •AS
II'WIOOUCtD'fiiO'~
....:~~ ........ D-o1tDI0-2·M
• ex><-._,
$ _ ......... ...,.........,._ ... ....... .., ......... .. ... ~ 1L.&MT w.ru.~
...... SUTOM (Ill(~
t2~-•'00 •.s ... 12·01 e., N ST • .-oct Q• aD .. , 12•200 ._, Q•)(IO • ., ft·~ ~
12•:500 • • 5
~MOltt>
l CQNSTJIUtT ~ "'U TO
1'\CDIPTHS .llil$ ~ II8CJYC.
2 sg ~"u~•noNS
S'I'.IICINCIIIIIUfriiOTD
LMC'ON11tJCrOit~
..-r--...&.~OIAII
1..1«~~_.,
!fAOICi oCJI3 USID,
2.nc tiiiGS IIICCAJlD .........
tiiOSI-.CM·~ ~ lHS ST.IIQC ll#ltlA
i
t
I
c
g
........ .., ..... ~COQIIIII:)NAT(SAII( ...
CII:H ~ IIUct 10 ~~
C..ILI~'IhtiCOOIII)IrM.I't
$T11(.u Z0JrC: I. NolO lli'9t
n«S Olf"MMffW)10 •.liS ~~ .... ~
Pt()T'OQtjiiMy OA.ttO 0.2-tl LECVIO
£!!:!!~!~
...
. s
• ----_,.""""'
....,....,.. .......
~ W.#ft4NQIJU
........ ""''" .,._ .... ,,.. ... ..... ...... '" ,,.,,. .... 1l•aCIO ... ., ..... ....
CQNSTIO>CTI(>o -
L «<M$TTIUCT~ 1t,l,. TO
nc. DPtwl liS ,.,.... .tiOWL ~ SlU.V wl(..l, Cl(T...U. OM J~CCt ,_, l. ti UfUrY lttl.OCAtorS C. »CrT V.l .
I
!I
It
u
I
I
u
(j(J\(."' ~f'O,I
¢11110~T($Ait(f1
..-rDESNOiftYDtfOnc:
CJIIL'o-M STAT{ C'()IOII)Milf(
'"T$t'bl l(IN[ &.M.IO &1191
m!!!!.
~
!!SIII!!!!!!a.
...
s .... - $
·--
...,..""""
'""'"""'"""""""' ....... ""'
~'nCNNOf("$1
l eot.nflJCT ~ WJIU TO
Dcrr =~~~--;ca. c ..... t. xt: UfUT'I' ltO.O(.ATION$
~.or u-1
STACH:~-.... *>rEf
fJC CONfllt,t,C'f'Cit 'IHoCJ.. ..SfotU~ QoUOf UM roo.o ~ N(T 1"t~.tAEASUKO
(
c
CDCJI.OI.OOO'U'
Qlill)~l($.1111t(N
IC'tc-t: ..,., IIIU'at TO hC
(.lt.I'Qaru.$TA,.[ toelfi:ICINATI
S'rSftw !ON( I. MilO aJI't'l
_,._...,.._,._
JMSOit~tO w...S
Plo()l~'f DJ.rto o-:-•
t!!!S
~
~
" s .._ ................ ..... • IIM)fOc:om:JI'
....,..,..........,... o- -o ~~C>~«
~-..c'llCJrfM:)f['$1:
1 . 0016.1'11Uef $1.~ 'IUU. TO HD(IJ'TlGU»>''IIJr!!~
2[ Sl.t.Mt W#IIJ, DtTJIIIU ON :I).Gr c-•t.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~i :t- 1U lftUT" ffl.OCAT1011S OH ..U:tu-3,.
~.ciOSoflt..OiC
t.MCI SID[ 101. $MIIU.II! -""'=---
I
GRAPHI C 5CALE
t
~
' ' i
l
8 Cl[~,._.., (1.
CIIIO~fO."''l"
IW(f'OIS ~ t!Utll' 10 '"< clll.l-.....t ~eoc:J~~DH,t.tt SlST[ "' lOll( l. fUoO ,U..i1
TWS Ofl'~tO • .,
HIODuCtO r~ .t("'Wl
~II)!(JIU#tft Ooll'UI 0.2·M
I!!S.
~
~
•
s 'SOl~f"IOIII
& Q:lltt1IICI.. KIN1 $ ..., .. _
. ..,...,._
-o ~~-~oc
..... ..,..., •.... . , .,
.. ,
I. COG"f'IVC I ~ •.rt.L TO !Aii!IIE""",.. "«. ~ AS SH:nnl .-owL flllillilt~fl~~~~ ~~ ...... .., .... "" m \lriUt" AO.ou.tOtS o- _.,.,.,_ l. J'fOI Sh. IS•l40 10
~u .. 1'-410 04VIl rs IIQ ctWUIUt:lll»ll ..... .
&. SNI•U.II Jlll_,liC1, &I UVU
rot StuLL tK HOt£(~
,......._,c:r ra , ••. IJ•t'-0
I
""""IC SCALE
~NOTtS"
aiDC~TtS.tltEiol
WCftJ11; ......, IO'Ot TO Tt4t CN..._.CiilNA S1'•Tt COOtiO.•u,'f[ SYilDI ZCM 1, IW) &1i't1 n4'S~f0W.AS
~,..,.,..<r(f&ll
P!10t~• CMJCD 11>2-96
CCit&tAUCTOI N)lt$•
1. f'ltOW ~4. 1.J•7eQ TO STA.. 1&-21'0 not: IS NO COHfJIUCTJON 'ICIMC. 5f~ .... N)f{l
M CQN'nl'.tCTC. !KILL N$loiii.L~~
I,.MICf()ICM:)otAO.H()IIH'f
fl/IQC. NlllAS usro.
I
GRAPHIC SC ALE
....
e
I !
• •
COCJI:.tl. -.otQ.
C.O~l(S.-R( Jll
CUJtS 1H:J ,.._.01: •o ,,.. ~r:-ro:;-.~~l(
'h<IS~TO ...S
fi80IIuC(D (t()u .IOUl. ~IOQJI'#IfiiW'Y Clrilft,fC) 111)-J:·tl COJ.IS~I'ICN NOTnt
1 ..... s, •. ,.J.oorc.o ro
J U .• II•Jl'O MJII II
MO a)lliiU(If()ll .....
~
I
GRAPHIC SCAI.E
'~ r rt ~.
1 i 1i1 I II
.,
•i f Iii ! l
~~ II~
iij ;
hi
- w ·i~ ~ i( ~ ~ 0
il
~~ i-
; j
0 t
·= • t •J l o
f
~ ..
C(~ N)1fS
010c.~m.tllll1111
lo4:f(lll'$ .wro ... ,,. 10 tP'I( CJUI'o.-Jt ..,t~U
'rrSf(W !()fll( 1. 1&10 8llt1
T'ICS CA~TO •AS
~~~Dol~~, .•
CONn'IJCTON ... ...,
l. l"'ll((ooStA •. I~rtl
STA.. IC.~TO TN(1I( IS
H3 CCN11lUCl 1011 IIJIIIIJ: .
" I
""""'"""'
-- ---
!d
!il
~~~~
-
r~ -i ~;
}i~
i~! I 2f1i !i
i a
c
~-telltS>
("A0~1('Sio'I(IN
.ctOIII. MCt ttU'I1t to r..c e.ot•caaM SI.&T't COCIII)Noo.l[ Sl'Sl{Y zo.t .. o.pb 8)1tt
""'5-~IO•A$
~---- '"'~ o.rm .,.,.
...
"""
-- <omiQ.- ...,..""""
""'"- Oo- -o =::::-~.;-
COtlll'llk.IC"f'Ool ..ora.
t n10W SIA. U•rtO fO
ltA.•·lM no& IS
11'0 CQNTIIIUCTI)N 1IOAK.
.
I GAAPHI C ~Al..£
--.....
·--
-~ .............. ·.- ------
~
: ~~
.
.~~
~
~'
~H I F i
= : 6 i z ~ a ~)!3 . \i a
"'
~ -
! !$ '>I> ~ !P qp~~~ ~s~ ~ q li
"R
..,
~~-::& lU :ia~~ § nl' §~~ ~~a~ ~ 1"~6 J~t Pr §
~!~~ iL ~~!!!.:: "
i
!! i s~~ 'ln:i e ~~6. e o
d * '}"
llioCaC"MII'ItJI tlrt '
~--·iUOttlet~eT
~~'~Jt Ciilf'OIINA
I!I)IIN-...cLNt ll!WIO-l'NJIIJCJ r ... =.::m£ a::t~ 1::?·~"'-·1 f 1 II I I Ill ._..
OR'fl.KIPHOJO/Pl.ctt
' ~ 1::"":.:·-J D ._... CEU ..._ liJ ---
-,
6 .
J . ~
t
I
I
!
_,.,.._..,rn
QtiO eOOIIDN.tts .rrM " IIII(T(*S ft) ~ TO r.c CVtliltM SIAl[ C'CIOIII)IU.Jt S'I"SI[u lt>« a. IIU() 18}.1tt n«SOIII'l~TQWAS
~IIOWO..~·"
mE.
~
JIIIZ!ma.
...
s 'Q.C;IIP\.OIItll.~ .. _ _,
• -.ctt~Q)ftp
lfD W1Uh (IOfT'ri(A~
.,.. -o =:c':S~~~
eo«l~HO'I't•
l':f!:J'.'l~tlu-~oG NOCOriTJl,C'T'I:H~
Sfoll(jlr,IC. «A MOJt•
L IICCCSS f() n< S1AOM: oflllllA~KI'IIOW
..... n ... 'tlt
.
I
c.RAI"NI C SC&L£
q 'II
i~l 'Si
h
~~· ;I -~
#i ~ ~
! 1- i~
•u ~ i j
(
(j(lrCJit.III.MOTt$1
0'110 eooJI()IIUT(S C R
t«l'DDIAIC>~TOM
Ut.F~ ST.a.T( ~rt
Sl"Sf!W 20tC .. tu0 a.l.l'9t
~O"n<I"'NNTO•olo!o
~-- llwO,~O.TR\ .. 1-..
!!S
....
~
OJII,IN
~
5 .._ __
. • --- -•ocbnut
.
I
CR.APN1C SCAlll
l.
A
Q:JCIIW..NOU $1
c.-oCO(IIIDNI.TtS,IIIIII( ..
WC.fW MtiJ o!W'Ot TO 1'lC c:JIIJ .... , ,.,, COCIIIIr:IMrot( "''' T{ o.t 10C I, IIUO ~~·
tMS~tO•Ar& HIOOuC:CD ,..., II(...._ ~1~ O.TtD Do
l ··
$ --~f'(W
. • ---..oJOcenP
'"~
--o ~=--~·~oc -.. ,.,. ...... ·-·-,...,.
....
, ...
,
,.
...
.
, ...
u.o
(Of!l'llu(;f'IOM .ll()f[Jo
\, ~T'Il,~WoiU.fO
ll(: QlYTNS 16 SM)Mrll tiO'JL - tl.lltltf W,tU,.C)lTM..$ 0N c; ., l . 5tt
_., Uf'Ul'Y IIO.ot.Af'IIONS OIIC .,.,
I
QtiP'H IC SCALE
id
T - :I
~~
~~~~
-
n I
~ ~;§
l I ~~~~ i ~
t
%
;
l
. i
• •
( (
C[NEJW. fl)l[S"
CliO C;QOIDU.tts AA( N
w[TUtS ....0 tttrat TO 'M;
CAIOIIU. ST.t.Tt ~1(
~1'01 ltiC .. tMO Ulll
rtc5Cifl~l0W.IIS
MOOuCID 'JKAI 4:a#IL F'r()f~ 1)1.1(0 1)·
2 ·tl
... _
·-......
l UI
,. .. , ..
ll.O
".0 '"' lU>
27.0 """""-""' "'"" -~i;;;:::;~~~~;~ii~ t. CON5TiriJCI '5UJ<'R'Y W..lf..L 10 -~·~o:A.'·'<··~ ~ ~C·41. ~ ~'"grtAl.~ 2.. stt UlUIT AQ.OCA"''NS (IN S)Ul 1..1-l.
I
GRAPHIC SCAlE
i If li IJ II ·!
li(JIIII!Il-. NQTt~
G'l() toeQOMt.'t'S lill( "' OCTUIS 1t1G ~QUI tO HC c."'L,....,.,.,-"'ftC~fC ~1stt w ~ • ....a ell-..
fW05 ~hCf'itroOTO w.s ~,...,.JI(.M.olt.
"""'oat~• Do\rtO 'G· )·il
..wus.. 1!!!5! ~
. """" s _............,. .. ....._ ..... $ _,...,..,.
... ....,..,......._ o- -o ~~O>-~
JT.&f'OII
17•300 ~
17 ·~
., .... , ._
,_
11·100
c:::cJCSTIIU:fO. ICU't'SI
I. COfSTIIU;T 'JU.-'1 Wollll 10 nc OCPM .-& i1-IC)WM .otOYC. :It~ • A.I. IX' AU OM
2. m vt\..IT't' -=:t.OCAfON5 OJol ~tu-l.
.
J
CRAPMI C SCALE
B
•
~
' l jl
((Hf*" ..OT(t-o
CMIO~l!$/IIC..,
lllf:TPS NlD ll'lfVt 10 hC. CA..f'OibU STA'ft (.OOGMT[ t'I'IT(¥ Z'OIC I.HIIO I.W"' THS 0tlKJII'M)10 W.t6
~DrJIClii.<OM.
"''l oc;IIMIW'I Oo\T[D 0<1._
-UW!2... es ~
. """' S SOl DI'\..CIIItAIDI ... __ • fiMQJO COirOt
'""" .............. o- -o ~~:c
tU . ..,. .ILL~
SlAncN IP'"
~ .. , .. , ,,...,. l:U 17• 1'00 lU
,_ zu ,._ ,_,
CCNSI'liUC'l'IOIIIIOI'(SI
l COdUlVCT 1l..llllh' •JIIIJ. TO M teniCI oiC !t40IMt .-:rtt. 11% ~ •JIU. OCT.._,<* "Stetf c-•• 2 sa: ttJUTY RQ.oc.uon 011 9ft'T ti-l ST,tQ-o~MOTt
\. AOX'SS fO ftC ST...::»G MI(AIMotllK FJIDI l.('w(( fOP ~
I
I
GRAPHIC SCAL£
~~
~~
in!
~i~~
- 131 ~
~ ij~
i~l I
•UI ii i
Page G
------- 9
!
v
t
!
r
,•
oXIC!tJI&. CHC'J'
Coi!LWOIIN.l
~~~~~ St .t.tt: COOIIIQII&AIY
S~'f\1 ZOIC l.lillrO 1~.,
,,.. at~TO •111$
....:UC:OJttOw~
~~~ 0,0.1(0 10·1-ta l ift I.UIII' ~f1 IJC JUfOUil t~Oioi(C\jiLIC 'f ro- oPl~tOioWJ'Srt ~·00*-...c.l-= .. ~
..Wii.!£. £!!!!!,~
.... tl' o-no s·---- .. COlt-a. """'
$ ""'fO COIIO
......., _ ..... Cl- -<) ~~-~
1L'*" •..u. HiOF'U
"""' SfAOON ... ..,., ,,..00 '" 17•tc0
"'·' '""""' u..> ... .,. :tlJ ... ,.,., iJ3 ··-
~'fMICnoNI'Qrr;
L GOICTaiCT su-r W.ICJ.. TO ncOU'M ..S~
~'Stl ............ ..... OCI M.S ON Stell C·•t
1 sa urun· IC.OCAftQHS
(ltiSI1((11J-% SI G«: /lltLA MOrt
1 ..ICCUS fO "'-' STACH:
~~l(l(rt'OW
' I
GA'API-4 1C S.C&&.E
:i!
~ ..
~I
~i
~ .. !--
~~-- ~~~
"i ~ i~! L i'l' !I
~- ;
• t
~
I
• '
(
G£111[JtAI. NOft$.<
CQO (()()lllpMT(S 4t( IN
llliCIVI:S lie ltUVt 10 Tl"l c.ac.•~ .. ,.·..rr~
'S~T( .. lOll( I, Jbl) all9t
Tl-«S ORT~TO •AS Pf¥)0VCtD rQow .tUuc. Pte:ltiXStAPtf'r DAY£0 '10·) ··
mil!.
~
.litZ!f!2!..
.. """' s SOl.OI'\.Oh.lbl
•
. --l9~
o- -o """"--~~~~;«
STATOI
...... """"' .....
.. ..,. ... ..., ·-.....
CXMSm..IC tlON fC)I($1
1. ~TM.ICf ~__.., W<ML 10
fH[ OEPTMS AS &OW A8CM' ~ 1L.UitRT W.IIU CCT....S ON flt"1 C· ... 8 ---- ------------
~f«)1U.
CMJ~t('!.-.ll(tl -c•P1 ..o IIU't~ •o nc Of..'OIIIIM $ 1AT( ~f( ~' STOI lOJtC: 4.. 1U0 1Jit1
ll"r';c-~TO ••S
-...oroc:rtliiiW'to.&l"':D•2 ~'""*"'ilbllC. ...
-UW!2.. 1!!!11!.~
....
s 6 ~~"""' _ _.
$ l"te:)IOCDmJt
""""'""""""""'
$1AI0t ~
..... .,.,..
.....
.. toO ......,
...
.. ... . .... .. ....
Cl:lNSr...ICnotol NOI{S'I
\. COWSl1IUCT 1U,M't' W"U. 10
sa
nc 1I..UIUt"'' CCPnc •H.L 4 ~
Drloi&S ~ CIA ~fC 49
2. S[t Ult.ITY tll\OCAT'CNS ON
~U·).
~IC SCAI.(
• • l
I
~
_OC>,...
aiiO C()QiiiDMo.lD ""'N &C;t~ 1110 JIUEJI' 10 rrc: CA#OINA 'l All COQIDiv.T[ rrst"W ZEN: I.N.c> llln'l r .. atr1~10WIOS
~~O&g-'11>-l M
..
• P~o<~~te Cl)mJt
!«lC un.trr IDDI'I'n>J'IQII
o- -o ~~o-tnx
·-·-......
.. ,. ... ,.,., . ....,
IWf'I[JI'S) """'
...
:tl
...
....
....
CDdffkiC:ntW MOTC$1
\ COMST"'-Ct 'SUIIfllt"'' WAU 10 MOCJio'"! AS 'SH)w.N ~ ma..-v WAU,.O(l~OIII
H(T C·4t
L SIX UT1JTT IUI.OCAI'IOIG ON SM!I:J U"'l.
a:MDtllt lOOTUCIIO~T[~otirltlfrl
~ot:r t~ IIIC) ~~tVt" to nc (A.If(IIIN.IShrtC~Jt
S'r'SJOI lQtC 'N!JO t.lo'f1
TWSC*T~TO • llt.S ""'C'UCmntOI.IA(-..c_
fl'tolf)t~Oot.T(CII)-)·t6
•.-s.,..,~t'S o(: .... ~
SI~OI'.II(C\IP...-(,(0/It
¢11~1"0"""'1"1
,....,tOC"~IIIC ~THODS
~WIIlJ..PilOf'l.[
<;fAOON ...... ... ...,..,
··- .... ·-- ... ·- .... ...... ...
CCIJdfllUCitON I'IC)f(S
\. CCIG'RJc::T SJIIIn' •llt.L ro 'IKDtl'lrfSAS~~
ta. SL~ •ou oc;r-.s; 0111
s.a-r c-••- z. ta: UTU1'Y ttu.OCAJOG (Ill&
PG'l u-.1.
~
I
CR..,.,.. IC SCAlE
Ill
ll
:t . t
}I !9 i
:; l
;~ §~~ u
~
i·l sit -
~ lir
ie! I i•U !- 5 ,_
I i
s
~IIQT($.
:fJs~S~~~MC CJU'~ 1 1Afl COQIIIPellAfiC
SYJ,rtW fOtC I. f4l() tJJ,I
ftCOit~T •AS
~k...:-a..~ ··
..IJ.K!!Q_
IDS .l!IR!l!!!!. ....
s ... ~~
.. __
$- ""'TO(OriT[a
Ul'V'I ~f1014
OJIISTAuCT'OI N)t['SJ
IIIO~noNON Nl$
~~~''"'"""
rJl ·I
I
FOR FFICIAL USE ONLY
OftriD'IIC.'*lof(i
QW) C~llS 1M .. fill( 1(~ .lfG CIUt 10 ll< C.atr-.... 'SIAK tOI)IIIOINJ.I( ~.,.,,[ .. ~Otllt .. .11110 tllt
r..,.QIII~IOWM
f'floOCIUICCO'.,~ I(~
t•tt()IQUI ......... nt.ltr. .... , ..
\1........, ,.., ~""''•"•"''""· .. <.) .o(.(."*"M..~ I 0. o-t~IQY.oP\.flt
~l()l'".l ..... lltol. .. l~
\,.,.. !C..r-'•• ... , .. ,
9 ""'""~'~ .. t*lrl'-.~·
-$ ~TO C(VI(It
"' ;
GRAPHIC SCALE
~:- , ...... Page G-86
·' .
Appendix H
Most Recent Levee Inspection Report
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
State of California- Department of Water Resources- Division of Flood Management- Flood Project Integrity & ,lnspectio~ Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
Levee Inspections
Fall 2008 Levee Maintenance Deficiency Summary Report
Overall LMA & Unit ~atings, including Boat Survey Erosion Sacramento River Basin
INA0001 Overall LMA Total LMA
American River Flood Control District Rating Miles
A 34.12
Encroachments
Rated Item M Miles U Miles M + 4U Miles Threshold% PO Miles CO Miles ----- - I Encroachments 0.02 0.02 0.06% 0.92 1.54
LMA Totals: 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.06% 0.92 1.54
Unit No. 01 Arcade Creek Overall Unit Total Unit
Rating Miles
A 2.10
Encroachments
Rated Item M Miles U Miles M + 4U Miles Threshold% PO Miles CO Miles -· - Encroachments 0.03 I 0.20 - ------ Unit Totals: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.03 I 0.20 Unit No. 02 N~tomas E Canal Overall Unit Total Unit
0:. Rating Miles .
A 4.00
Rated Item MMiles U Miles M + 4U Miles Threshold%
Encroach men~!!,--
PO Miles CO Miles
No Items ,-------- - Unit Totals: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 ' 0.00 Unit No. 03 American River Overall Unit Total Unit
Rating Miles
A 3.42
Encroachments
Rated Item M Miles U Miles M + 4U Miles Threshold % PO Miles CO Miles - No Items Unit Totals: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00
Unit No. 04 American River Overall Unit Total Unit
Rating Miles
A 11 .00
Encroachments
Rated Item MMiles U Miles M + 4U Miles Threshold% PO Miles CO Miles Encroachments 0.02 0.02 0.18% 0.74 I 1.10 --- - Unit Totals: 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.18% 0.74 I 1.10 Unit No. 05 Sacramento River Overall Unit Total Unit
Rating Miles
A 0.40
Rated Item MMiles U Miles M + 4U Miles Threshold%
croachments
PO Miles CO Miles
Encroachments 0.02 r-· Unit Totals: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.02 0.00 Unit No. 06 Linda Creek Overall Unit Total Unit
Rating Miles
A 1.30
Rated Item MMiles U Miles M + 4U Miles Threshold%
·=-·=§nE!:oachments
PO Miles CO Miles
No Items
Unit Totals: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 o'.oo
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:44
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page H-1
State of Cal1fornia - Department of Water Resources - Division of Flood Management - Flood ProJect lnteg~ lty & lnspectio~ Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
Levee Inspections
Fall 2008 Levee Maintenance Deficiency Summary Report
Overall LMA & Unit Ratings, including Boat Survey Erosion Sacramento River Basin (cont.)
Unit No. 07 Arcade Creek T Overall Unit Total Unit
Rating Miles
A 1.90
Enc~Ch!!!en ~
Rated Item MMiles U Miles M +4U Miles Threshold% PO Miles CO Miles - - ·- - - -- Encroachments 0.04 0. 11
Unit Totals: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.04 0.11
Unit No. 08 Magpie Creek Diversion Overall Unit Total Unit Rating Miles
A 1.50
Encroachments
Rated Item MMiles U Miles M +4U Miles Threshold % PO Miles CO Miles - No Items Unit Totals: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 ·- Unit No. 09 American River Overall Unit Total Unit Rating Miles
A 4.50
Rated Item MMiles U Miles M +4U Miles Threshold %
c--_ EncroaE!!._f11!1nts
PO Miles CO Miles
:----- - - -- - Encroachments 0.09 I 0.13
Unit Totals: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.09 0.13
nit No. 10 American River Overall Unit Total Unit
Rating Miles
A 4.00
......E!Icroachments
Rated Item MMiles U Miles M +4U Miles Threshold% PO Miles CO Miles - No Items Unit Totals: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00
Unit No. 11 New Arcade Creek I Overall Unit Total Unit
Rating Miles
A
Encroachments
Rated Item MMiles UMiles M +4U Miles Threshold% PO Miles CO Miles - - --- No Items - -- --- Unit Totals: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 - .... '-
Monday, March 02, 2009 16o44
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page H-2
State of California- Department of Water Resources- Division of Flood Management- Flood Proj,ect lntewity & Jnspe ti ~ Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
Levee Inspections
LMA District Cover Sheet
Fall 2008 levee Inspection Results
American River Flood Control District
Fall Winter **
NA0001
Spring
(March - May)
Summer **
(June - August) (September- November) (December- February) *Overall LMA Rating (Fall Only) A
** Non-receipt of Summer or Winter Inspection Reports may effect overall annual rating. *
SPRING INSPECTIONS: Overall maintenance ratings are not determined for the spring inspection results. Individual maintenance deficiencies are rated using the same criteria in the spring and in the faiL FALL INSPECTIONS: The overall maintenance rating shown above is based on operation and maintenance deficiencies identified within the attached unit inspection reports .
Comments
Monday, March 02, 2009 16A4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-3
State of California -Department of Water Resources -Division of Flood Management - Flood Project Integrity & lnspectio~ Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance ~ ,' ,
Levee Inspections
Unit Cover Sheet
Fall 2008 Levee Inspection Results
American River Flood Control District
Waterway
Unit No. 01 Arcade Creek
Spring Summer Fall Winter
(March - May) (June- August) (September November) (December - February) Date of Inspection 5/8/2008 9/18/2008
;
DWR Inspector Clay Thomas Hana Babbin
Accompanied By
aintenance Ratin~ r A
(Fall Only}
Unit M
Check one:
During the current winter (or summer) inspection period, my staff or I have inspected the levee and associated flood project components identified in the attached Levee Inspection Report by Mile. We have found no changes in flood project conditions other than the results of our normal maintenance and the corrections we have made to maintenance deficiencies identified in the enclosed report.
During the current winter (or summer) inspection period, my staff or I have inspected the levee and associated flood project components identified in the attached Levee Inspection Report by Mile. In addition to the results of our normal maintenance and the corrections we have made to maintenance deficiencies identified in the report, we have found the following changes in flood project conditions.
(In the comment section below or on additional sheet(s), identify change of condition by· Start to End Levee Mile or GPS coordinates, location (Land Side, Water Side, or Crown), Item identification, and description of the current condition).
Comments
One of the boxes above is to be checked by the Local Maintaining Agency (LMA). If the second box is checked, additional information must also be submitted. This Unit Cover Sheet should be signed and dated by the LMA Representative and returned to WR with any additional sheets by September 30 (Summer Inspection) or March 31 (Winter Inspection). Please retain a copy for your records. Please mail all of this information to : DWR Summer/Winter Inspection Reports 3310 El Camino Avenue, Room LL-30
Sacramento, CA 95821-9000.
X
Signature of LMA Representative Date
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:44
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
NA0001
Page H-4
'--...-
I ~ 1 Levee Mile
~ Start I End
1 1.14 1.14
2 1.16 1.16
3 1.17 1.17
4 1.18 1.18
5 1.19 1.19
6 1.26 1.26
7 1.35 1.35
8 1.37 1.37
9 1.38 1.38
10 1.39 1.39
11 1.41 1 .41
12 1.42 1.42
13 1.43 1.43
14 1.55 1.55
15 1.83 1.83
16 1.87 1.87
17 1.88 1.88
18 1.92 1.92
19 1.93 1.93
• Location
LS : Land Side
WS : Water Side
CR : Crown
State of California- Department of Water Resources- Division of Flood Management- Flood Project lntegrjty &,lnspectio~ Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
NA0001
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile - Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
Waterway Bank Unit Miles ! Inspection Date Inspector I
Unit No. 01 Arcade Creek
Category J Item l[ 5"
~
.iS ~J Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Buildings
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
.. Rating
A : Acceptable PO : Partially Obstructing
M : Minimally Acceptable CO : Completely Obstructing
U : Unacceptable N : Not Inspected
Left
Action/Comment
2.1 o I 09/18/2008 Han a
Babbin
1 GPS Latitude/Longitude_ I if 1 1
I Start J End _jo I ffiJ
38.624800 ° 38.624800 ° 24
·121.448808 ° ·121.448808 °
38.624832 ° 38.624832 ° 23
·121.448607 ° -121.448607 °
38.624850 ° 38.624850 ° 22
·121.448428 °-1 21.448428 °
38.624877 ° 38.624877 ° 21
·121.448248 ° -121.448248 °
38.624900 ° 38.624900 ° 20
·121.448037 ° -1 21.448037 °
38.625300 ° 38.625300 ° 18
·121.446767 °-121.446767 °
38.625827 ° 38.625827 ° 17
·121 .445395 ° ·121.445395 °
38.626000 ° 38.626000 ° 16
-121.444978 °-121 .444978 °
38.626048 ° 38.626048 ° 15
-121 .444785 °-121.444785 °
38.626085 ° 38 626085 ° 14
·121.444580 ° -121.444580 °
38.626155 ° 38.626155 ° 13
-121.444250 ° -121.444250 °
38.626212 ° 38.626212 ° 12
·121.444082 ° -121.444082 °
38.626325 ° 38.626325 ° 11
·121.443928 ° -121.443928 °
38.627267 ° 38.627267 ° 10
-121.442138 ° ·121.442138 °
38.627880 ° 38.627880 °
-121.437368 ° ·121.437368 °
38.627827 ° 38.627827 °
·121.436633 ° -121.436633 °
38.627837 ° 38 627837 °
-121.436393 ° ·121.436393 °
38.627725 ° 38.627725 °
·121.435715 ° -121.435715 °
38.62 7680 ° 38.627680 °
·121.435555 ° -121.435555 °
Monday, March 02, 2009 16.45 FINAL DATA Page 1 of 2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-5
I
I ~ 1 Levee Mile
~ Start I End
20 1.94 1.94
2 1 1.95 1.95
22 1.99 1.99
23 2.00 2.00
• Location
LS : Land Side
WS : Water Side
CR : Crown
State of Cal ifornia- Department of Water Resources- Division of Flood Management- Flood Proj~ct lntegr_ity & !nspectiorl Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
NA0001
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile - Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
Waterway Bank Unit Miles
Unit No. 01 Arcade Creek I Left 2.10
Category : Item I·[ g .il ! Action/Comment
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences
Levee
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping
Levee
h Rating
A : Acceptable PO : Partially Obstructing
M : Minimally Acceptable CO : Completely Obstructing
U : Unacceptable N : Nollnspecled
Inspection Date Inspector I
09/18/2008 Hana
Babbin
GPS Latitude/Longitude lg I ~
Start I End 16' "'
38.627640 ° 38.627640 °
·121.435378 ° -121.435378 °
38 .627595 ° 38.627595 °
-121.435218 °-121.435218 °
38.627377 ° 38.627377 °
·121.434383 °-121.434383 °
38.627318 ° 38.627318 °
-121.434208 ° -121 .434208 °
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45 FINAL DATA Page 2 of 2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-6
I
State of California- Department of Water Resources- Division of Flood Management- Flood Proiect lntegr,ity &_lnspectioll Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
Levee Inspections
Unit Cover Sheet
Fall 2008 Levee Inspection Results
American River Flood Control District
Waterway
Unit No. 02 Natomas E Canal
Spring Summer Fall Winter
(March - May) (June- August) (September November) (December - February) Date of Inspection 5!7/2008 9/18/2008
DWR Inspector Clay Thomas Hana Babbin
Accompanied By
Unit Maintenance Ratin~ ~ A
(Fall Only}
Check one:
During the current winter (or summer) inspection period, my staff or I have inspected the levee and associated flood project components identified in the attached Levee Inspection Report by Mile. We have found no changes in flood project conditions other than the results of our normal maintenance and the corrections we have made to maintenance deficiencies identified in the enclosed report.
During the current winter (or summer) inspection period, my staff or I have inspected the levee and associated flood project components identified in the attached Levee Inspection Report by Mile. In addition to the results of our normal maintenance and the corrections we have made to maintenance deficiencies identified in the report, we have found the following changes in flood project conditions.
(In the comment section below or on additional sheet(s), identify change of condition by: Start to End Levee Mile or GPS coordinates, location (Land Side, Water Side, or Crown), Item identification, and description of the current condition).
Comments
One of the boxes above is to be checked by the Local Maintaining Agency (LMA). If the second box is checked, additional information must also be submitted. This Unit Cover Sheet should be signed and dated by the LMA Representative and returned to DWR with any additional sheets by September 30 (Summer Inspection) or March 31 (Winter Inspection). Please retain a copy for your records. Please mail all of this information to : DWR Summer/Winter Inspection Reports 3310 El Camino Avenue, Room LL-30
Sacramento, CA 95821-9000.
X
Signature of LMA Representative Date
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
NA0001
Page H-7
State of California- Department of Water Resources - D1vis1on of Flood Management- Flood Project Integrity & lnspectio~ Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance 1 , •
NA0001
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile- Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
[ Waterway Bank Unit Miles Inspection Date Inspector J
Unit No. 02 Natomas E Canal Left 4.00 09/18/2008 Han a
Babbin
Category Item Action/Comment
• Location .. Rating
LS Land Side A : Acceptable PO : Partially Obstructing
WS ·Water Side M : Minimally Acceptable co : Completely Obstructing CR: Crown U · Unacceptable N : Not Inspected
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45 FINAL DATA Page 1 of 1
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-8
State of California- Department of Water Resources- Division of Flood Management- Flood Project lntewity &,lnspectto~ Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
Levee Inspections
Unit Cover Sheet
Fall 2008 Levee Inspection Results
American River Flood Control District
Date of lnspecti on
DWR Inspect or
Accompanied B y
Unit Maintenance Rati
(Fall On n~ly) ~
Waterway
Unit No. 03 American River
Spring Summer Fall
(March - May) (June- August) (September- November)
5/8/2008 9/18/2008
Clay Thomas Hana Babbin
A
Winter
(December- February)
Check one:
During the current winter (or summer) inspection period, my staff or I have inspected the levee and associated flood project components identified in the attached Levee Inspection Report by Mile. We have found no changes in flood project conditions other than the results of our normal maintenance and the corrections we have made to maintenance deficiencies identified in the enclosed report.
During the current winter (or summer) inspection period, my staff or I have inspected the levee and associated flood project components identified in the attached Levee Inspection Report by Mile. In addition to the results of our normal maintenance and the corrections we have made to maintenance deficiencies identified in the report, we have found the following changes in flood project conditions.
(In the comment section below or on additional sheet(s), identify change of condition by: Start to End Levee Mile or GPS coordinates, location (Land Side, Water Side, or Crown), Item identification, and description of the current condition).
Comments
One of the boxes above is to be checked by the Local Maintaining Agency (LMA). If the second box is checked, additional Information must also be submitted. This Unit Cover Sheet should be signed and dated by theLMA Representative and returned to WR with any additional sheets by September 30 (Summer Inspection) or March 31 (Winter Inspection). Please retain a copy for our records. Please mail all of this information to : DWR Summer/Winter Inspection Reports 3310 El Camino Avenue, Room LL-30
Sacramento, CA 95821-9000.
X
Signature of LMA Representative Date
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
NA0001
Page H-9
State of California- Department of Water Resources - Division of Flood Management- Flood Proj~ct lntegr_ify & !nspectiorl Bra nch NA0001 Flood Control Project Maintenance •
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile - Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
I Waterway Bank Unit Miles Inspection Date Inspector j
Unit No. 03 American River Right 3.42 09/18/2008 Hana
Babbin
r ~ I Levee Mile
Category I Item I·[ :i! Action/Comment 1 GPS Latitude/Longitude I [I ~ Start I End g "' 1 Start 1 End 1cr ffi • Location - Rating
LS . Land Side A : Acceptable PO Partially Obstructing
WS :Water Side M . Minimally Acceptable co : Completely Obstructing CR : Crown U : Unacceptable N : Not Inspected
Monday. March 02, 2009 16o45 FINAL DATA Page 1 of 1
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-10
State of California - Department of Water Resources - D1vis1on of Flood Management - Flood Pro\ect lnte ~ity & .fnspe o~ Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
Levee Inspections
Unit Cover Sheet
Fall 2008 Levee Inspection Results
American River Flood Control District
Date of I nspec lion
DWR lnspe ctor
Accompanie d By
Unit Maintenance Ra
(Fall 0 tin)! nly)
Waterway
Unit No. 04 American River
Spring Summer Fall
(March - May) (June- August) (September - November)
5/16/2008 9/18/2008
Clay Thomas Hana Babbin
A
Bank
Left
Winter
(December- February)
Check one:
During the current winter (or summer) inspection period, my staff or I have inspected the levee and associated flood project components identified in the attached Levee Inspection Report by Mile. We have found no changes in flood project conditions other than the results of our normal maintenance and the corrections we have made to maintenance deficiencies identified in the enclosed report.
During the current winter (or summer) inspection period, my staff or I have inspected the levee and associated flood project components identified in the attached Levee Inspection Report by Mile. In addition to the results of our normal maintenance and the corrections we have made to maintenance deficiencies identified in the report, we have found the following changes in flood project conditions.
(In the comment section below or on additional sheet(s ), identify change of condition by: Start to End Levee Mile or GPS coord inates, location (Land Side, Water Side, or Crown), Item identification, and description of the current condition).
Comments
One of the boxes above is to be checked by the Local Maintaining Agency (LMA). If the second box is checked, additional mformation must also be submitted. This Unit Cover Sheet should be signed and dated by the LMA Representative and returned to DWR with any additional sheets by September 30 (Summer Inspection) or March 31 (Winter Inspection). Please retain a copy for your records. Please mail all of this information to : DWR Summer/Winter Inspection Reports 3310 El Camino Avenue, Room LL-30
Sacramento, CA 95821-9000.
X
Signature of LMA Representative Date
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
NA0001
Page H-11
State of California- Department of Water Resources- D1v1sion of Flood Management- Flood Project lnteg\ity & lnspectioo Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance ' , ,
NA0001
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile - Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
L Waterway Bank Unit Miles Inspection Date Inspector .I Unit No. 04 American River Left 11.00 09/18/2008 Hana
Babbin
End Category Item Action/Comment
0.31 0.47 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.599835 ° 38.600762 ° Levee -121.503448 °-121.500833 °
2 2.68 2.68 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Buildings 38.588913 ° 38.588913 ° Levee -121467210 °-121467210 °
3 2.82 2.82 Earthen Encroachments LS M Debris 38.587442 ° 38.587442 ° Levee -121465170 °-121.465170 °
4 2.84 2.84 Earthen Encroachments WS M Debris 38.587272 ° 38.587272 ° Levee -121464768 °-121.464768 °
5 2.93 2.93 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Buildings 38.587250 ° 38.587250 ° Levee ·121.463138 °-121.463138 °
6 3.91 3.91 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.586105 ° 38.586105 ° 8 Levee -121.447622 °-121.447622 °
7 3.92 3.92 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.586327 ° 38.586327 ° 6 Levee ·121.44 7382 ° -121.44 7382 °
8 3.92 3.92 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.586118 ° 38.586118 ° Levee -121.447540 °-121.447540 °
9 3.94 3.94 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.585888 ° 38.585888 ° 9 Levee -121.447172 °-121.447172 °
10 3.97 3.97 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.585655 ° 38.585655 ° 10 Levee -121.446793 ° ·121446793 °
11 401 4.01 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.585367 ° 38.585367 ° 11 Levee -121446262 °-121.446262'
12 4.02 4.02 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.585180 ° 38.585180' 12 Levee -121445988 °-121.445988 °
13 4.05 4.05 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.584923 ° 38.584923 ° 13 Levee ·121445655 °-121445655 °
14 4.07 4.07 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.584713 ° 38.584713 ° 14 Levee -121445385 ° ·121445385 °
15 4.10 4.10 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.584485 ° 38.584485 ° 15 Levee -121445042 °-121.445042 °
16 4.11 4.11 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.584347 ° 38.584347 ° 16 Levee ·121444855 °-121.444855 °
17 4.12 4.12 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.584237 ° 38.584237 ° 17 Levee -121444680 ° ·121444680 °
18 4.13 4.13 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.584133 ° 38.584133 ° 18 Levee -121444545 ° -121444545 °
19 4.14 4.14 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.584063 ° 38.584063 ° 19 Levee -121444428 '-121444428 °
• Location - Rating
LS Land Side A : Acceptable PO · Partially Obstructing
WS · Water Side M Minimally Acceptable co : Completely Obstructing CR: Crown u Unacceptable N Not Inspected
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45 FINAL DATA Page 1 of9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-12
State of California- Department of Water Resources- Division of Flood Management- Flood Project IntegritY & lnspe tio~ Branch ~ ' ' NA0001
Flood Control Project Maintenance ·
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile- Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
I Waterway Bank Unit Miles Inspection Date Inspector I
Unit No. 04 American River I Left 11 .00 09/18/2008 Hana Babbin
r ~ I Levee Mile
~~ Start 1 End Category ·1 Item I·[ \'i' .ll I Action/Comment 1 GPS Latitude/Longitude Ill ~ 1 Start 1 End lo '" 20 4.15 4.15 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.583980 ° 38.583980 ° 20 Levee -121.444267 °-121.444267 °
21 4.16 4.16 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.583858 ° 38.583858 ° 21 Levee -121.444070 °-121.444070 °
22 4.20 4.20 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38 583563 ° 38.583563 ° 22 Levee -121.443533 ° -121.443533 °
23 4.22 4.22 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.583367 ° 38.583367 ° 23 Levee -121.443205 ° -121.443205 °
24 4.23 4.23 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.583270 ° 38.583270 ° 24 Levee -121.443067 ° -121.443067 °
25 4.28 4.28 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.582802 ° 38.582802 ° 25 Levee -121 .442387 °-121.442387 °
26 4.32 4.32 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.582480 ° 38.582480 ° 26 Levee -121.441865 ° -121.441865 °
27 4.35 4.35 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.582218 ° 38.582218 ° 27 Levee -121.441345 ° -121.441345 °
28 4.36 4.36 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.582160 ° 38.582160 ° 28 Levee -121.441207 °-121.441207 °
29 4.41 4.41 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.581868 ° 38.581868 ° 29 Levee -121.440340 ° -121.440340 °
30 4.42 4.42 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.581792 ° 38.581792 ° 30 Levee -121.440138 ° -121.440138 °
31 4.43 4.43 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.581747 ° 38.581747 ° 31 Levee ·121.440003 ° -121.440003 °
32 4.48 4.48 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.581512 ° 38.581512 ° 32 Levee -121.439188 ° -121.439188 °
33 4.49 4.49 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.581478 ° 38.581478 ° 33 Levee ·121.439018 ° ·121.439018 °
34 4.51 4.51 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.581375 ° 38.581375 ° 34 Levee ·121.438588 ° ·121.438588 °
35 4.55 4.55 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.581207 ° 38.581207 ° 35 Levee ·121.437998 ° ·121.437998 °
36 4.56 4.56 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.581197 ° 38.581197 ° 36 Levee ·121.437815 ° ·121.437815 °
37 4.68 4.68 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.580957 ° 38.580957 ° 37 Levee ·121 .435645 °-121.435645 °
38 4.69 4.69 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.580900 ° 38.580900 ° 38 Levee ·121.435367 ° ·121.435367 °
• Location -Rating
LS :Land Side A Acceptable PO : Partially Obstructing
WS :Water Side M: Minimally Acceptable CO : Completely Obstructing CR: Crown U : Unacceptable N : Not Inspected
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45 FINAL DATA Page 2 of 9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-13
State of California- Department of Water Resources- D;vi sion of Flood Management- Flood Project Integrity & lnspectio~ Branch l ' • NA0001
Flood Control Project Maintenance ·
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile - Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
r Waterway Bank Unit Miles Inspection Date Inspector 1
Unit No. 04 American River Left 11.00 09/18/2008 Hana
Babbin
r I Levee Mile
~ Start 1 End Category I Item l·i =JI Action/Comment 1 GPS Latitude/Longitu ~ 1 J J Start J End 0 "'
39 4.72 4.72 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.580833 ° 38.580833 ° 39 Levee -121.434918 ° -121.434918 °
40 4.75 4.75 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.580742 ° 38.580742 ° 40 Levee -121.434305 °-121.434305 °
41 4.77 4.77 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.580733 ° 38.580733 ° 41 Levee -121.433932 °-121 .433932 °
42 4.79 4.79 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.580720 ° 38.580720 ° 42 Levee -121 .433587 °-1 21.433587 °
43 4.84 4.84 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.580725 ° 38.580725 ° 43 Levee -121.432613 ° -121.432613 °
44 4.91 4.91 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.580813 ° 38.580813 ° 44 Levee -121.431345 °-121.431345 °
45 4.94 4.94 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.580848 ° 38.580848 ° 45 Levee -121.430753 °-121.430753 °
46 5.10 5.10 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.581032 ° 38.581032 ° 46 Levee -121.427927 °-121.427927 °
47 5.15 5.15 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.580912 ° 38.580912 ° 47 Levee -121.427042 ° -121.427042 °
48 5.19 5.19 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.580660 ° 38.580660 ° 48 Levee -121.426403 °-121.426403 °
49 5.46 5.46 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.577595 ° 38.577595 ° 49 Levee -121.423347 ° -121.423347 °
50 5.56 556 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.576208 ° 38.576208 ° so Levee -121.423152 °-121.423152 °
51 5.58 5.58 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.576005 ° 38.576005 ° 51 Levee -121.423150 °-121.423150 °
52 5.62 5.62 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.575390 ° 38.575390 ° 52 Levee -121.423207 °-121.423207 °
53 5.63 5.63 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.575250 ° 38.575250 ° 53 Levee -121.423240 °-121.423240 °
54 5.64 5.64 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.575093 ° 38.575093 ° 54 Levee -121.423263 ° -121.423263 °
55 5.66 5.66 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.574837 ° 38.574837 ° 55 Levee -121.423297 ° -121.423297 °
56 5.67 5.67 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Buildings 38.574648 ° 38.574648 ° 56 Levee -121.423348 ° -121.423348 °
57 5.72 5.72 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.573927 ° 38.573927 ° 57 Levee -121.423480 ° -121.423480 °
• Location "Rating
LS . Land Side A : Acceptable PO: Partially Obstructing ws . Water Side M : Minimally Acceptable co : Completely Obstructing CR: Crown U : Unacceptable N : Not Inspected
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45 FINAL DATA Page 3 of9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-14
I
r ~ I Levee Mile
Start I End
58 5.75 5.75
59 5.76 5.76
60 5.77 5.77
61 5.79 5.79
62 5.81 5.81
63 5.83 5.83
64 5.85 5.85
65 5.87 5.87
66 5.88 5.88
67 5.88 5.88
68 5.89 5.89
69 5.91 5.91
70 5.92 5.92
71 5.97 5.97
72 6.00 6.00
73 6.61 6.61
74 7.73 7.73
75 7.75 7.75
76 7.80 7.80
• Location
LS · Land Side
ws : WaterSide
CR : Crown
State of California- Department of Water Resources- Division of Flood Management- Flood Project lnteg(lty &.lnspectio~ Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
NA0001
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile- Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
Waterway Bank Unit Miles Inspection Date nspec ~
Unit No. 04 American River Left 11 .00 09/18/2008 Hana :
Babbin I
Category J Item I·[ g :~.5 1 Action/Comment 1 GPS Latitude/Longitude 1 l 1 Start J End _]8' co
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.573547 ° 38.573547 ° 58 Levee -121.423583 °-121.423583 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.573403 ° 38.573403 ° 59 Levee ·121.423642 ° ·121.423642 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.573240 ° 38.573240 ° 60 Levee -121.423697 ° ·121.423697 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.572918 ° 38.572918 ° 61 Levee -121.423760 °-121.423760 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.572748 ° 38.572748 ° 62 Levee ·121.423818 °-121.423818 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Buildings 38.572325 ° 38.572325 ° 63 Levee -121.423913 °-121.423913 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.572117 ° 38.572117 ° 64 Levee -121.423987 °-121.423987 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.571783 ° 38.571783 ° 65 Levee -121.424080 °-121.424080 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Material 38.571685 ° 38.571685 ° 67 Levee -121.424115 ° -121.424115 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Buildings .38 571688 ° 38.571688 ° 66 Levee -121.424112 °-121.424112 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.571525 ° 38.571525 ° 68 Levee ·121.424152 °-121.424152 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.571305 ° 38.571305 ° 69 Levee -121.424183 °-121.424183 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.571145 ° 38.571145 ° 70 Levee -121.424192 °-121.424192 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.570450 ° 38.570450 ° 71 Levee -121.424237 °-121.424237 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.569973 ° 38.569973 ° 72 Levee -121.424282 °-121.424282 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Buildings 38.561643 ° 38.561643 ° 73 Levee -121.421262 °-121.421262 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.559172 ° 38.559172 ° 74 Levee -121.402947 °-121.402947 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.559227 ° 38.559227 ° 75 Levee -121.402647 °-121.402647 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.559308 ° 38.559308 ° 76 Levee -121.401717 °-121.401717 °
*'* Rating
A : Acceptable PO : Partially Obstructing
M : Minimally Acceptable co : Completely Obstructing
U : Unacceptable N : Not Inspected
Monday, March 02, 2009 16<45 FINAL DATA Page 4 of9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-15
r
l ~ j Levee Mile
~~ Start I End
77 7.85 7.85
78 7.88 7.88
79 7.97 7.97
80 8.01 8.01
81 8 05 8.05
82 809 8.09
83 8.10 8.10
84 8.11 8.11
85 8.13 8.13
86 8.14 8.14
87 8.15 8.15
88 8.20 8.20
89 8.22 8.22
90 8.23 8.23
91 8.25 8.25
92 8.25 8.25
93 8.26 8.26
94 8.27 8.27
95 8.28 8.28
• Location
LS :Land Side
ws :Water Side
CR: Crown
State of California- Department of Water Resources- Division of Flood Management- Flood Pro;ect lnteg,qity &, lnspectio\1 Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
NA0001
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile - Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
Waterway Bank Unit Miles Inspection Date Inspector l
Unit No. 04 American River Left 11.0() 09/18/2008 Han a ' Babbin Category I Item l·i :J! Action/Comment ~~atitude/Longitude ~~I [1 art 1 End Ia "'
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.559367 ° 38.559367 ° 77 Levee -121.400938 ° ·121.400938 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.559408 ° 38.559408 ° 78 Levee -121.400242 °-121.400242 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.559833 ° 38.559833 ° 79 Levee ·121.398785 °-121.398785 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.560070 ° 38.560070 ° 80 Levee ·121.398128 °-121.398128 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.560340 ° 38.560340 ° 81 Levee ·121.397388 °-121.397388 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.560563 ° 38.560563 ° 82 Levee ·121.396818 °-121.396818 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.560647 ° 38.560647 ° 83 Levee -121.396660 ° ·121.396660 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.560725 ° 38.560725 ° 84 Levee -121.396470 ° ·121.396470 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.560837 ° 38.560837 ° 85 Levee -121.396220 ° ·121.396220 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.560907 ° 38.560907 ° 86 Levee -121.396043 °-121.396043 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.561008 ° 38.561008 ° 87 Levee ·121.395817 ° ·121.395817 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.561325 ° 38.561325 ° 88 Levee ·121.395067 °-121.395067 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.561467 ° 38.561467 ° 89 Levee ·121.394728 °-121.394728 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.561540 ° 38.561540 ° 90 Levee -121.394513 ° ·121.394513 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.561593 ° 38.561593 ° 91 Levee -121.394315 ° -121.394315 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.561658 ° 38.561658 ° 92 Levee -121.394157 ° ·121.394157 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.561658 ° 38.561658 ° 93 Levee ·121.394152 ° ·121.394152 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.561732 ° 38.561732 ° 94 Levee ·121.393928 °-121.393928 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.561802 ° 38.561802 ° 95 Levee ·121.393697 ° ·121.393697 °
.. Rating
A : Acceptable PO : Partially Obstructing
M : Minimally Acceptable co : Completely Obstructing
U : Unacceptable N : Not lnspecled
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45 FINAL DATA Page 5 of9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-16
"-...--
I
r ~ I Levee Mile
~ Start I End
96 8.29 8.29
97 8.31 8.31
98 8.32 8.32
99 8.33 8.33
100 8.34 8.34
101 8.38 8.38
102 8.45 8.45
103 8.47 8.47
104 8.48 8.48
105 8.51 8.51
106 8.52 8.52
107 8.54 8.54
108 8.55 8.55
109 8.57 8.57
110 8.58 8.58
111 8.60 8.60
112 8.61 8.61
113 8.61 8.61
114 8.63 8.63
• Location
LS : Land Side
WS :Water Side
CR: Crown
State of California - Department of Water Resources - Division of Flood Management - Flood Proj,ect lnteg~(ty & _lnspectio~ Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
NA0001
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile - Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
W aterway Bank Unit Miles Inspection Date Inspect~
Unit No. 04 American River Left 11.00 09/18/2008 Hana
Babbin
'
Category I Item lj g: c.S I ~
Action/Comment 1 GPS Latitude/Longitude ~ I [I
l Start 1 End jff "'
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.561872 ° 38.561872 ° 96 Levee -121.393537 ° ·121.393537 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.561972 ° 38.561972 ° 97 Levee -121.393323 °-121.393323 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.562045 ° 38.562045 ° 98 Levee -121.393148 ° ·121.393148 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.562120 ° 38.562120 ° 99 Levee -121.392983 ° ·121.392983 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.562182 ° 38.562182 ° 100 Levee -121.392778 ° ·121.392778 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.562430 ° 38.562430 ° 101 Levee -121.392083 ° ·121.392083 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.562840 ° 38.562840 ° 102 Levee -121.391040 ° ·121.391040 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.562998 ° 38.562998 ° 103 Levee -121.390647 °-121.390647 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.563108 ° 38.563108 ° 104 Levee ·121.390452 °-121.390452 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.563238 ° 38.563238 ° 105 Levee ·121.390073 °-121.390073 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.563308 ° 38.563308 ° 106 Levee -121.389885 °-121.389885 °
Earthen Encroachments LS co Landscaping 38.563438 ° 38.563438 ° 107 Levee -121.389528 °-121.389528 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.563508 ° 38.563508 ° 108 Levee -121.389347 °-121.389347 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.563580 ° 38.563580 ° 109 Levee ·121.389140 °-121.389140 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.563678 ° 38.563678 ° 110 Levee -121.388938 ° ·121.388938 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.563820 ° 38.563820 ° 111 Levee -121.388518 ° ·121.388518 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.563877 ° 38.563877 ° 113 Levee -121.388343 ° ·121.388343 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.563877 ° 38.563877 ° 112 Levee -121.388345 °-121.388345 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.563945 ° 38.563945 ° 114 Levee ·121.388137 °-121.388137 °
-Rating
A . Acceptable PO : Partially Obstructing
M: Minimally Acceptable CO : Completely Obstructing
U · Unacceptable. N . Not Inspected
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45 FINAL DATA Page 6 of9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-17
State of California- Department of Water Resources - Divis1on of Flood Management- Flood Pro!ect lntegqty &.lnspect1oll Branch NA000 1 Flood Control Project Maintenance ·
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile - Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
I Waterway Bank Unit Miles Inspection Date ns pect~
Unit No. 04 American River Left 11.00 09/18/2008 Hana
Babbin l ~ 1 Levee Mile
~~ Start I End Category I Item l·i :JI Action/Comment
GPS Latitude/Longitude ~ I 1
Start 1 End o "'
115 8.65 8.65 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.563998 ° 38 .563998 ° 11 5 Levee -121 .387725 °-121.387725 °
116 8.66 8.66 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.564035 ° 38.564035 ° 116 Levee -121.387572 °-121.387572 °
117 8.66 8.66 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.564033 ° 38.564033 ° 117 Levee ·121.387572 °-121.387572 °
118 8.68 8.68 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.564133 ° 38.564133 ° 118 Levee ·121.387092 °-121.387092 °
119 8.68 8.68 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.564135 ° 38.564135 ° 11 9 Levee -121.387088 ° ·121.387088 °
120 9.54 9.54 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.566835 ° 38 .566835 ° 120 Levee ·121 .372048 ° ·121.372048 °
121 9.61 9.61 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.567007 ° 38.567007 ° 121 Levee -121 .370918 °-121.370918 °
122 9.64 9.64 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.567115 ° 38.567115 ° 122 Levee -121.370330 °-121.370330 °
123 9.66 9.66 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.567208 ° 38.567208 ° 123 Levee -1 21.370003 ° ·121.370003 °
124 9.67 9.67 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.567242 ° 38.567242 ° 124 Levee -1 21.369858 ° -121 .369858 °
125 9.69 9.69 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.567330 ° 38.567330 ° 125 Levee -121.369462 ° ·121.369462 °
126 9.70 9.70 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.567352 ° 38.567352 ° 126 Levee -121.369293 ° ·121.369293 °
127 9.72 9.72 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.567423 ° 38.567423 ° 127 Levee -121.368910 ° ·121.368910 °
128 9.74 9.74 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.567493 ° 38.567493 ° 128 Levee ·121.368633 ° ·121.368633 °
129 9.75 9.75 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.567505 ° 38.567505 ° 129 Levee ·121.368415 ° ·121.368415 °
130 9.78 9.78 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.567598 ° 38.567598 ° 130 Levee ·121.367890 °-121 .367890 °
131 9.79 9.79 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.567628 ° 38.567628 ° 131 Levee ·121.367612 ° -121.367612 °
132 9.82 9.82 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.567722 ° 38.567722 ° 132 Levee -121 .367085 °-121.367085 °
133 9.84 9.84 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.567887 ° 38.567887 ° 133 Levee ·121.366793 ° -121 .366793 °
• Location "Rating
LS : Land Side A : Acceptable PO : Partially Obstructing WS: Water Side M : Minimally Acceptable CO : Completely Obstructing CR: Crown U : Unacceptable N : Not Inspected
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45 FINAL DATA Page 7 of9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-18
...._..
I
I ~ 1 Levee Mile
~~ Start 1 End
134 9.86 9.86
135 10.02 10.02
136 10.03 10.03
137 10.07 10 07
138 10.08 10.08
139 10.11 10.11
140 10.16 10.16
141 10.36 10.36
142 10.40 10.40
143 10.43 10.43
144 10.47 10.47
145 10.47 10.47
146 10.50 10.50
147 10.53 10.53
148 10.56 10.56
149 10.59 10.59
150 10.60 10.60
151 10.61 10.61
152 10.63 10.63
• Location
LS :Land Side
WS :Water Side
CR: Crown
State of California- Department of Water Resources- Division of Flood Management- Flood Proj1ect lntegr,ily & )nspectio~ Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
NA0001
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile - Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
Waterway Bank Unit Miles Inspection Date Inspector I
Unit No. 04 American River ! Left 11 .00 09/18/2008 Hana : Babbin
Category I Item lj g ~~.5 1 Action/Comment ·1 GPS Latitude/Longit e~ ~ I" [J J Start 1 End .IS" "'
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.567873 ° 38.567873 ° 134 Levee -121.366410 °-121.366410 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.568542 ° 38.568542 ° 135 Levee -121.363643 °-121.363643 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.568620 ° 38.568620 ° 136 Levee -121.363453 °-121.363453 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.568822 ° 38.568822 ° 137 Levee -121.362768 °-121.362768 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.568712 ° 38.568712 ° 138 Levee -121.362663 °-121.362663 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.569077 ° 38.569077 ° 139 Levee -121.362168 °-121.362168 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.569177 ° 38.569177 ° 140 Levee -121.361218 °-121.361218 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.570000 ° 38.570000 ° 141 Levee -121.357767 °-121.357767 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.570147 ° 38.570147 ° 142 Levee ·121.357073 °-121.357073 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.570225 ° 38.570225 ° 143 Levee ·121.356510 °-121.356510 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.570315 ° 38.570315 ° 145 Levee -121.355938 °-121.355938 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.570312 ° 38.570312 ° 144 Levee ·121.355938 ° ·121.355938 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.570433 ° 38.570433 ° 146 Levee ·121.355342 ° ·121.355342 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.570510 ° 38.570510 ° 147 Levee ·121.354758 ° ·121.354758 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.570503 ° 38.570503 ° 148 Levee ·121.354352 ° ·121.354352 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.570243 ° 38.570243 ° 149 Levee -121.353918 ° ·121.353918 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.570095 ° 38.570095 ° 150 Levee -121.353807 °-121.353807 °
Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.569990 ° 38.569990 ° 151 Levee -121.353758 °-121.353758 °
Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.569707 ° 38.569707 ° 152 Levee -121.353633 °-121.353633 °
-Rating
A Acceptable PO : Partially Obstructing
M : Minimally Acceptable CO : Completely Obstructing
U : Unacceptable N : Not Inspected
Monday, March 02, 2009 16.45 FINAL DATA Page 8 of9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-19
State of California- Department of Water Resources- Division of Flood Management- Flood Pro,ject lnteg,r,ity & lnspectioo Branch NA0001 Flood Control Project Maintenance -
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile - Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
I Waterway Bank Unit Miles Inspection Date Inspector J
Unit No. 04 American River Left 11.00 09/18/2008 Han a
Babbin
End
Category Item Action/Comment
153 10.67 10.67 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.569158 ° 38.569158 ° 153 Levee -121.353370 °-121.353370 °
154 10.68 10.68 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.569020 ° 38.569020 ° 154 Levee -121.353313 °-121.353313 °
155 10.69 10.69 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.568870 ° 38.568870 ° 155 Levee -121.353245 °-121.353245 °
156 10.71 10.71 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.568713 ° 38.568713 ° 156 Levee -121.353150 °-121.353150 °
157 10.72 10.72 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.568512 ° 38.568512 ° 157 Levee -121.353078 °-121.353078 °
158 10.73 10.73 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.568355 ° 38.568355 ° 158 Levee -121.353033 °-121.353033 °
159 10.74 10.74 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.568227 ° 38.568227 ° 159 Levee -121.352997 °-121.352997 °
160 10.75 10.75 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.568112 ° 38.568112 ° 160 Levee -121.352942 ° -121.352942 °
161 10.76 10.76 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.567993 ° 38.567993 ° 161 Levee -121.352852 °-121.352852 °
162 10.81 10.81 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.567328 ° 38.567328 ° 162 Levee -121.352478 °-121.352478 °
163 10.82 10.82 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.567145 ° 38567145 ° 163 Levee -121.352380 °-121.352380 °
164 10.86 10.86 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.566788 ° 38.566788 ° 164 Levee -121.351777 °-121.351777 °
165 10.90 10.90 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.554763 ° 38.554763 ° 170 Levee -121.346112 ° -121.346112 °
166 10.97 10.97 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.563338 ° 38.563338 ° 171 Levee -121.350295 °-121.350295 °
167 10.97 10.97 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Fences 38.564995 ° 38.564995 ° 168 Levee -121.348150 °-121.348150 °
168 10.97 10.97 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Landscaping 38.564645 ° 38.564645 ° 167 Levee -121.349090 °-121.349090 °
169 10.97 10.97 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.564960 ° 38.564960 ° 166 Levee -121.348975 °-121.348975 °
170 10.97 10.97 Earthen Encroachments LS PO Fences 38.565930 ° 38.565930 ° 165 Levee -121.350028 °-121.350028 °
171 10.97 10.97 Earthen Encroachments LS CO Landscaping 38.561302 ° 38.561302 ° 169 Levee -121.348837 °-121.348837 °
• Location -Rating
LS :Land Side A : Acceptable PO · Partially Obstructing ws : Water Side M : Minimally Acceptable co : Completely Obstructing CR: Crown U · Unacceptable N : Not Inspected
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45 FINAL DATA Page 9 of9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page H-20
I
State of California - Departmen·t of Water Resources - Division of Flood Management - Flood Project lntegqty & ln pectio~ Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance
Levee Inspections
Unit Cover Sheet
Fall 2008 Levee Inspection Results
American River Flood Control District
Waterway Unit Miles
Unit No. 05 Sacramento River 0.40
Spring Summer Fall Winter
(March - May) (June- August) (September · November) (December- February) Date of Inspection 5/16/2008 9/18/2008
DWR Inspector Clay Thomas Hana Babbin
Accompanied By
Unit Maintenance Ratin~ ~ A
(Fall Only)
Check one:
1 During the current winter (or summer) inspection period, my staff or I have inspected the levee and associated flood project components identified in the attached Levee Inspection Report by Mile. We have found no changes in flood project conditions other than the results of our normal maintenance and the corrections we have made to maintenance deficiencies identified in the enclosed report.
During the current winter (or summer) inspection period, my staff or I have inspected the levee and associated flood project components identified in the attached Levee Inspection Report by Mile. In addition to the results of our normal maintenance and the corrections we have made to maintenance deficiencies identified in the report, we have found the following changes in flood project conditions.
(In the comment section below or on additional sheet(s), identify change of condition by: Start to End Levee Mile or GPS coordinates , location (Land Side, Water Side, or Crown), Item identification, and description of the current condition).
Comments
One of the boxes above is to be checked by the Local Maintaining Agency (LMA). If the second box is checked, additional nformation must also be submitted. This Unit Cover Sheet should be signed and dated by the LMA Representative and returned to DWR with any additional sheets by September 30 (Summer Inspection) or March 31 (Winter Inspection). Please retain a copy for our records. Please mail all of this information to: DWR Summer/Winter Inspection Reports 3310 El Camino Avenue, Room LL-30
Sacramento, CA 95821 -9000.
X
Signature of LMA Representative Date
Monday, March 02, 2009 16:45
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
NA0001
Page H-21
State of California- Department of Water Resources- Division of Flood Management - Flood Project Integrity & lnspectioo Branch Flood Control Project Maintenance 1 · •
NA0001
I
I ~ 1 Levee Mile
~ Start I End Category I 1 0.11 0.11 Earthen
Levee
2 0.15 0.15 Earthen
Levee
Levee Inspections
Levee Inspection Report By Mile- Fall 2008
American River Flood Control District
Waterway Bank Unit Miles
Unit No. 05 Sacramento River I Left 0.40 I
Item lj g =~c5 I ~ Action/Comment
Encroachments LS PO Landscaping
Encroachments LS PO Landscaping
•Location -Rating
LS : Land Side A : Acceptable PO : Partially Obstructing WS: Water Side M : Minimally Acceptable co : Completely Obstructing CR : Crown U : Unacceptable N : Not Inspected
Monday, March 02, 2009 16.45 FINAL DATA
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Inspection Date Inspector I
09/18/2008 Hana
Babbin
1 GPS Latitude/Longitude lir I ~
I Start I End JO" "'
38.594850 ° 38.594850 °
-121 .506452 °-121 .506452 °
38.594310 ° 38.594310 °
-121 506360 °-121.506360 °