Sacramento City Council
October 21, 2025

MS Office Excel 2003 SP2 Part of MS Office Standard Edition 2003 Date (Version 2.1) January 15, 2014

8. Note on Thin Layer Correction: A maximum number of 30 layers can be entered for thin layer correction. Thin layer correction (Cthin) can be made only for standard cone (diameter = 1.4055"). Interpolated Cthin is provided for maximum thin layer thickness (h) of 2.4 feet (for (qcB)avg/(qcA)avg between 2 and 5) and

7.2 feet (for (qcB)avg/(qcA)avg between 5 and 10).

Bray, J.D., Sancio, R.B., 2006. "Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils". Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 9, September 2006, pp. 1165-1177.

1. The user should understand the methodology and assumptions presented in the references before using this spreadsheet. The CPT-based liquefaction assessment proposed by Reference 1 is adopted in the calculations. Example presented in the spreadsheet was used to verify the equations in the spreadsheet, and it is not part of any liquefaction analysis for any task order. Use of this example to justify any analysis is not permitted.

Seed, R.B., Cetin, K. O. Moss, R. E. S., Kammerer, A. M., Wu, J., Pestana, J. M., Riemer, M. F., Sancio, R.B., Bray, J. D., Kayen, R. E., Faris, A., 2003. "Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework". 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring

10. CRR Values were calculated using Reference 1 and CSR values are calculated based on τmax values from Reference 3.

Robertson, P.K., and Wride (Fear), C.E., 1998. "Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using the Cone Penetration Test". Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35, pp. 442–459.

9. CPT based soil behavior type and zone numbers (both SBT and SBTn zone numbers and soil types based on Reference 2) are included in the "Calculation Sheet" to facilitate in assessing soil liquefaction susceptibility based on soil type. Users should evaluate any apparent change in soil behavior type within thin layers in assessing liquefaction susceptibility based on soil type.

Ahmed Bayoumi, PhD and Khaled Chowdhury, GE
Reference Sheets

7. Normalized tip resistance values were calculated using iterative process in accordance with Reference 1. Values were calculated using iterative process in two ways: a. 5 iterations using EXCEL equations and b. 10 iterations using internal codes. Two values are presented to evaluate accuracy of the internal codes. The internal codes derived normalized tip resistance values are used subsequently in the spreadsheet.

Step 4: The User Manually Enters Selected Cthin in Column J of "Input Data and Thin Layer Sheet". Calculation Sheet" imports Cthin values from column J of "Input Data and Thin Layer Sheet".

4. The spreadsheet estimates the Factors of Safety against liquefaction in accordance with the procedure described in Reference 1. In accordance with Reference 3, FSL≤1 is considered "Likely Liquefiable" and 1<FSL<1.25 is considered "Less Likely Liquefiable". User shall be responsible for interpretation of the FSL results.

5. Input Data: selected raw and interpreted CPT data including tip resistance, sleeve friction, soil unit weight, SBT, and SBTn from "Raw Data Sheet" must be entered on sheet "Input Data and Thin Layer Sheet". In Reference 1, tip resistance qc refers to raw tip resistance.

Step 1: User enters depths to top and bottom of thin layer, average tip resistance in thin layer, (qcB)avg., and average tip resistance outside thin layer, (qcA)avg.

Step 2: The spreadsheet calculates Cthin using Figure 5 of Reference 1

6. Thin Layer Correction Procedure
The CPT tip resistance measurement at a particular point in a highly stratified soil column represents the resistance at the tip with respect to the layers above and below the tip. Depending on the thickness of the layer at the cone tip, the measured tip resistance value can be significantly different from the true tip resistance value of the stratum if it were a continuous thick layer. The sleeve resistance on the other hand, is thought to be not significantly affected by the layers above and below the sleeve; consequently, the friction ratio and Soil Behavior Type (SBT) will also be affected by a thin layer.

The evaluation of thin layers can be time consuming and requires significant judgment on the part of the user and requires extra review by a senior engineer.

Therefore, the liquefaction triggering analysis should be performed first without any consideration being given to thin layers. Only in areas where a potential for liquefaction is identified should the user check whether a thin layer may be present. If a thin layer may be present, the user should seek the input of a senior engineer.

Step 5: Due to modifying qc and friction ratio in the thin layer, re-classifying SBT is necessary (Reference 6). Zone number for soil behavior type (SBT and SBTn) must be entered manually by the user. The modified tip resistance and the corresponding friction ratio needed for SBT classification are provided in columns AK and AL in "Calculation Sheet" tab. Similarly Columns AP and AR are used to re-classify SBTn. SBT and SBTn classification charts are available in "Ref.

Sheet(2)_SBT" Tab.

Calculated Values

2. The results should be verified independently if the spreadsheet is used in a computer system different than the one indicated in the "verified with" cell. A hand calculation package should be prepared by the user.

Data Input By Analyst Calculation Sheet
Input Data and Thin Layer Sheet
Raw CPT Data Sheet

12. Guidance on selecting τmax curves: For CPTs located water-ward of a point one-third up the waterside slope of the levee, use the waterside curves. For CPTs located land-ward of a point one-third up the landside slope of the levee, use the landside curves.

Updated by (Version 2.1) Erik Julian, PE
Step 3: The average tip resistance representing the thin layer (qcB)avg and outside thin layer (qcA)avg must be selected by the user. For combinations of thin layer thickness (h) and tip resistance ratios (qcB)avg/(qcA)avg falling out of interpolation range, the user can refer to Figure 5 (Reference 1.) to select Cthin.

Ahmed Bayoumi, PhD and Anthony Deus
Gyeong-Taek Hong, PhD
Verified with (Version 2.0)
Date (Version 2.0) October 3, 2008
Results of Analysis
Verified with (Version 2.1) MS Office Excel 2010
Developed by (Version 2.0)
CSR Interpolation by (Version 2.0)
Detail Check by (Version 2.0)
Verified By (Version 2.0)
Verified By (Version 2.1) Khaled Chowdhury, GE
Detail Check by (Version 2.1) Kanax Kanagalingam, PhD, PE C:\Users\KC_Fuerstenberger\Desktop\Copy of CPT Liquefaction V2 1 (''Less Likely'')Calculation Sheet 8/6/2014 2 of 8 REFERENCES:

Analysis by: Date:

Checked by: Date:

Note: Crest/Landside/Waterside, and distance from Crest/Landside toe/Waterside toe

66.8 31.8 Note:

40.0 Note:
200

0.16 Crest

6.5 35.0

26.8 4
Depth Tip Resistance, qcSleeve Friction, fsFriction Ratio, RfTotal Unit WeightTotal, σvEffective During Exploration , σv'Effective During Earthquake, σv'Thin Layer Number, nSelected Thin Layer correction Factor, CThinUsed Thin Layer correction Factor, CThinTip Resistance Corrected for Thin Layer qc,thinFriction Ratio Corrected for Thin Layer, Rf,thinTip Normalized Exponent (initial), cTip Normalized Factor (initial), CqNormalized Tip Resistance (initial), qc1Tip Normalized Exponent (final), cTip Normalized Factor (final), CqNormalized Tip Resistance (final), qc1Tip Normalized Exponent, c Normalized Tip Resistance, qc1 Percent Difference between Values Obtained by Iterations and Internal Code Fines Adjustment for Tip Resistance, ∆qcModified Normalized Tip Resistance, qc1,modSoil Behavior Zone from Raw CPT Data SheetUpdated Tip Resistance in Thin Layer, qc,thin (Column AK)Updated Friction Ratio in Thin Layer, Rf,thin (Column AL)User-Selected Soil Behavior Zone - Only for Thin Layer (Based on Columns AK & AL)Soil Behavior Type, SBT Normalized Soil Behavior ZoneUpdated Normalized Tip Resistance in Thin Layer, qc1,thin (Column AP)Updated Normalized Sleeve Friction in Thin Layer, fs1,thinUpdated Friction Ratio for Normalized Tip Resistance in Thin Layer, Rf1,thin (Column AR)User-Selected Soil Behavior Zone - Only for Thin Layer (Based on Columns AP & AR)Normalized Soil Behavior Type, SBTn USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LLPlasticity Index, PIWater Content, wcFines Content, FCLiquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Column AZ)Below Design Groundwater Level (Column BA) τmax
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRCyclic Resistance Ratio, CRRFactor of Safety, FSLFSL < 1.25 (Column BF)qc1,mod < 100 tsf (Column BG)Final Assessment Based on Columns AZ, BA, BF, and BGFactor of Safety, FSLComment(Likely Liquefiable for FSL ≤ 1;Less Likely Liquefiable for1.0 < FSL < 1.25;Non-Liquefiable for FSL ≥ 1.25) (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (%) (pcf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (-) (-) (-) (tsf) (%) (-) (-) (tsf) (-) (-) (tsf) (-) (tsf) (%) (tsf) (tsf) (-) (tsf) (%) (-) (-) (-) (tsf) (tsf) (%) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (%) (%) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (psf) (-) (-) (-) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (-) (-)

0.7 45.3 0.89 2.0 118 77 77 77 - - - - - 0.48 1.70 76.9 0.42 1.70 76.9 0.42 76.9 0.00 9.3 86.2 7 - - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 12.7 0.107 0.154 1.44 No Yes No 1.44 Non-Liquefiable

0.8 48.3 1.2 2.5 115 96 96 96 - - - - - 0.44 1.70 82.2 0.39 1.70 82.2 0.39 82.2 0.00 11.0 93.2 6 - - Sandy silt to clayey silt 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 12.7 0.086 0.183 2.12 No Yes No 2.12 Non-Liquefiable

1.0 54.2 1.4 2.6 115 115 115 115 - - - - - 0.42 1.70 92.2 0.37 1.70 92.2 0.37 92.2 0.00 10.2 102.3 6 - - Sandy silt to clayey silt 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 12.7 0.072 0.224 3.12 No No No 3.12 Non-Liquefiable

1.1 47.5 1.5 3.1 115 134 134 134 - - - - - 0.42 1.70 80.8 0.37 1.70 80.8 0.37 80.8 0.00 17.9 98.7 6 - - Sandy silt to clayey silt 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 25.4 0.123 0.194 1.57 No Yes No 1.57 Non-Liquefiable

1.3 38.5 1.4 3.6 115 153 153 153 - - - - - 0.43 1.70 65.5 0.37 1.70 65.5 0.37 65.5 0.00 20.1 85.6 5 - - Clayey silt to silty clay 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 25.4 0.108 0.155 1.43 No Yes No 1.43 Non-Liquefiable

1.5 29.5 1.3 4.5 115 172 172 172 - - - - - 0.45 1.70 50.1 0.38 1.70 50.1 0.38 50.1 0.00 24.1 74.2 4 - - Silty clay to clay 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 25.4 0.096 0.127 1.32 No Yes No 1.32 Non-Liquefiable

1.6 26.1 1.3 5.1 111 190 190 190 - - - - - 0.46 1.70 44.4 0.38 1.70 44.4 0.38 44.4 0.00 32.2 76.5 3 - - Clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 38.0 0.130 0.120 0.92 Yes Yes No 0.92 Non-Liquefiable

1.8 28.1 1.4 5.1 111 208 208 208 - - - - - 0.45 1.70 47.8 0.37 1.70 47.8 0.37 47.8 0.00 30.6 78.4 3 - - Clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 38.0 0.119 0.128 1.08 Yes Yes No 1.08 Non-Liquefiable

2.0 37.0 1.6 4.2 115 227 227 227 - - - - - 0.42 1.70 62.9 0.36 1.70 62.9 0.36 62.9 0.00 23.9 86.8 4 - - Silty clay to clay 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 38.0 0.109 0.158 1.45 No Yes No 1.45 Non-Liquefiable

2.1 45.6 1.7 3.7 115 246 246 246 - - - - - 0.41 1.70 77.4 0.35 1.70 77.4 0.35 77.4 0.00 22.9 100.3 5 - - Clayey silt to silty clay 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 50.6 0.134 0.197 1.47 No No No 1.47 Non-Liquefiable

2.3 49.1 1.7 3.5 115 265 265 265 - - - - - 0.40 1.70 83.5 0.35 1.70 83.5 0.35 83.5 0.00 21.2 104.7 5 - - Clayey silt to silty clay 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 50.6 0.124 0.219 1.76 No No No 1.76 Non-Liquefiable

2.5 53.9 1.91 3.6 115 284 284 284 - - - - - 0.39 1.70 91.6 0.34 1.70 91.6 0.34 91.6 0.00 20.4 112.0 5 - - Clayey silt to silty clay 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 50.6 0.116 0.257 2.22 No No No 2.22 Non-Liquefiable

2.6 63.5 2.2 3.5 115 303 303 303 - - - - - 0.38 1.70 108.0 0.33 1.70 108.0 0.33 108.0 0.00 21.8 129.8 6 - - Sandy silt to clayey silt 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 63.0 0.135 0.354 2.62 No No No 2.62 Non-Liquefiable

2.8 67.3 2.3 3.4 115 321 321 321 - - - - - 0.37 1.70 114.4 0.33 1.70 114.4 0.33 114.4 0.00 20.8 135.3 6 - - Sandy silt to clayey silt 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 63.0 0.127 0.401 3.14 No No No 3.14 Non-Liquefiable

3.0 62.1 2.3 3.7 115 340 340 340 - - - - - 0.37 1.70 105.5 0.33 1.70 105.5 0.33 105.5 0.00 22.0 127.5 5 - - Clayey silt to silty clay 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 63.0 0.120 0.351 2.92 No No No 2.92 Non-Liquefiable

3.1 52.4 2.3 4.5 115 359 359 359 - - - - - 0.37 1.70 89.1 0.32 1.70 89.1 0.32 89.1 0.00 29.0 118.1 4 - - Silty clay to clay 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 75.4 0.136 0.282 2.07 No No No 2.07 Non-Liquefiable

3.3 46.6 2.3 5.0 115 378 378 378 - - - - - 0.38 1.70 79.2 0.32 1.70 79.2 0.32 79.2 0.00 32.0 111.2 4 - - Silty clay to clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 75.4 0.130 0.247 1.90 No No No 1.90 Non-Liquefiable

3.4 52.8 2.3 4.3 115 397 397 397 - - - - - 0.38 1.70 89.8 0.32 1.70 89.8 0.32 89.8 0.00 26.6 116.4 5 - - Clayey silt to silty clay 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 75.4 0.124 0.281 2.27 No No No 2.27 Non-Liquefiable

3.6 48.0 2.2 4.5 115 416 416 416 - - - - - 0.38 1.70 81.6 0.33 1.70 81.6 0.33 81.6 0.00 29.4 111.0 4 - - Silty clay to clay 8 - - - Very stiff sand to clayey sand Yes No 87.7 0.137 0.242 1.76 No No No 1.76 Non-Liquefiable

3.8 42.7 2.0 4.6 115 435 435 435 - - - - - 0.39 1.70 72.6 0.34 1.70 72.6 0.34 72.6 0.00 29.6 102.2 4 - - Silty clay to clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 87.7 0.131 0.203 1.55 No No No 1.55 Non-Liquefiable

3.9 39.7 1.8 4.6 115 453 453 453 - - - - - 0.40 1.70 67.5 0.34 1.70 67.4 0.34 67.4 0.00 28.8 96.2 4 - - Silty clay to clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 87.7 0.126 0.182 1.45 No Yes No 1.45 Non-Liquefiable

4.1 38.0 1.7 4.5 115 472 472 472 - - - - - 0.41 1.70 64.7 0.35 1.69 64.3 0.35 64.3 0.00 29.4 93.7 4 - - Silty clay to clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 100.0 0.138 0.168 1.22 Yes Yes No 1.22 Non-Liquefiable

4.3 34.1 1.6 4.8 115 491 491 491 - - - - - 0.42 1.70 58.0 0.36 1.68 57.4 0.36 57.4 0.00 31.1 88.5 4 - - Silty clay to clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 100.0 0.132 0.151 1.14 Yes Yes No 1.14 Non-Liquefiable

4.4 28.8 1.5 5.3 111 509 509 509 - - - - - 0.44 1.70 48.9 0.37 1.68 48.4 0.37 48.4 0.00 31.8 80.3 3 - - Clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 100.0 0.128 0.133 1.04 Yes Yes No 1.04 Non-Liquefiable

4.6 25.5 1.4 5.4 111 528 528 528 - - - - - 0.46 1.70 43.3 0.38 1.69 43.1 0.38 43.1 0.00 33.3 76.4 3 - - Clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 112.2 0.138 0.120 0.87 Yes Yes No 0.87 Non-Liquefiable

4.8 24.4 1.4 5.6 111 546 546 546 - - - - - 0.46 1.70 41.5 0.38 1.68 40.9 0.38 40.9 0.00 32.7 73.6 3 - - Clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 112.2 0.134 0.117 0.88 Yes Yes No 0.88 Non-Liquefiable

4.9 23.5 1.3 5.5 111 564 564 564 - - - - - 0.47 1.70 39.9 0.39 1.67 39.2 0.39 39.2 0.00 32.1 71.3 3 - - Clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 112.2 0.129 0.112 0.86 Yes Yes No 0.86 Non-Liquefiable

5.1 22.4 1.2 5.4 111 582 582 582 - - - - - 0.48 1.70 38.1 0.40 1.67 37.4 0.40 37.4 0.00 33.3 70.7 3 - - Clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 124.3 0.139 0.107 0.77 Yes Yes No 0.77 Non-Liquefiable

5.2 23.2 1.2 5.0 111 600 600 600 - - - - - 0.48 1.70 39.4 0.40 1.66 38.5 0.40 38.5 0.00 32.8 71.2 3 - - Clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 124.3 0.135 0.105 0.78 Yes Yes No 0.78 Non-Liquefiable

5.4 24.5 1.1 4.6 115 619 619 619 - - - - - 0.48 1.70 41.6 0.40 1.64 40.2 0.40 40.2 0.00 29.3 69.5 4 - - Silty clay to clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 124.3 0.130 0.105 0.80 Yes Yes No 0.80 Non-Liquefiable

5.6 25.2 1.1 4.6 115 638 638 638 - - - - - 0.48 1.70 42.9 0.40 1.62 40.9 0.40 40.9 0.00 30.0 70.9 4 - - Silty clay to clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 136.3 0.139 0.106 0.76 Yes Yes No 0.76 Non-Liquefiable

5.7 26.2 1.1 4.3 115 657 657 657 - - - - - 0.48 1.70 44.6 0.40 1.60 42.0 0.40 42.0 0.00 28.1 70.1 4 - - Silty clay to clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 136.3 0.135 0.106 0.79 Yes Yes No 0.79 Non-Liquefiable

5.9 24.2 1.2 4.9 111 675 675 675 - - - - - 0.48 1.70 41.1 0.40 1.59 38.4 0.40 38.4 0.00 31.4 69.8 3 - - Clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 136.3 0.131 0.104 0.79 Yes Yes No 0.79 Non-Liquefiable

6.1 23.4 1.2 5.3 111 693 693 693 - - - - - 0.48 1.70 39.8 0.40 1.57 36.7 0.40 36.7 0.00 33.4 70.0 3 - - Clay 9 - - - Very stiff fine grained Yes No 148.3 0.139 0.104 0.75 Yes Yes No 0.75 Non-Liquefiable

6.2 23.1 0.8 3.5 115 712 712 712 - - - - - 0.52 1.70 39.3 0.44 1.62 37.3 0.44 37.3 0.00 22.3 59.6 5 - - Clayey silt to silty clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 148.3 0.135 0.090 0.67 Yes Yes No 0.67 Non-Liquefiable

6.4 23.6 0.9 3.8 115 731 731 731 - - - - - 0.51 1.70 40.2 0.43 1.58 37.4 0.43 37.4 0.00 24.1 61.5 4 - - Silty clay to clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 148.3 0.132 0.093 0.71 Yes Yes No 0.71 Non-Liquefiable

6.6 24.2 0.9 3.9 115 750 750 750 - - - - - 0.50 1.68 40.8 0.43 1.56 37.8 0.43 37.8 0.00 24.9 62.7 4 - - Silty clay to clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 160.2 0.139 0.094 0.67 Yes Yes No 0.67 Non-Liquefiable

6.7 24.9 1.0 3.9 115 769 769 769 - - - - - 0.50 1.65 41.1 0.43 1.54 38.3 0.43 38.3 0.00 25.2 63.5 4 - - Silty clay to clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 160.2 0.135 0.095 0.70 Yes Yes No 0.70 Non-Liquefiable

6.9 25.5 1.1 4.2 115 788 788 788 - - - - - 0.49 1.62 41.2 0.42 1.51 38.6 0.42 38.6 0.00 26.3 64.9 4 - - Silty clay to clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 160.2 0.132 0.098 0.74 Yes Yes No 0.74 Non-Liquefiable

7.1 23.7 1.1 4.5 115 807 807 807 - - - - - 0.49 1.60 38.0 0.42 1.50 35.6 0.42 35.6 0.00 29.9 65.5 4 - - Silty clay to clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 172.0 0.139 0.096 0.69 Yes Yes No 0.69 Non-Liquefiable

7.2 21.3 1.0 4.9 111 825 825 825 - - - - - 0.50 1.61 34.1 0.43 1.50 31.9 0.43 31.9 0.00 32.2 64.1 3 - - Clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 172.0 0.136 0.092 0.68 Yes Yes No 0.68 Non-Liquefiable

7.4 20.7 1.0 4.6 111 843 843 843 - - - - - 0.51 1.60 33.2 0.44 1.50 31.1 0.44 31.1 0.00 29.8 60.9 3 - - Clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 172.0 0.133 0.089 0.67 Yes Yes No 0.67 Non-Liquefiable

7.5 18.0 0.9 4.7 111 861 861 861 - - - - - 0.54 1.63 29.3 0.46 1.51 27.3 0.46 27.3 0.00 31.4 58.6 3 - - Clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 183.7 0.139 0.084 0.60 Yes Yes No 0.60 Non-Liquefiable

7.7 16.6 0.8 4.6 111 879 879 879 - - - - - 0.56 1.64 27.3 0.48 1.52 25.3 0.48 25.3 0.00 30.0 55.3 3 - - Clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 183.7 0.136 0.080 0.59 Yes Yes No 0.59 Non-Liquefiable

7.9 16.7 0.7 4.4 111 898 898 898 - - - - - 0.57 1.62 27.1 0.48 1.51 25.2 0.48 25.2 0.00 28.6 53.8 3 - - Clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 183.7 0.133 0.079 0.59 Yes Yes No 0.59 Non-Liquefiable

8.0 17.3 0.7 4.2 115 916 916 916 - - - - - 0.56 1.60 27.7 0.48 1.50 25.8 0.48 25.8 0.00 27.5 53.4 4 - - Silty clay to clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 195.4 0.139 0.078 0.57 Yes Yes No 0.57 Non-Liquefiable

8.2 17.4 0.8 4.7 111 935 935 935 - - - - - 0.55 1.57 27.3 0.47 1.47 25.6 0.47 25.6 0.00 30.9 56.5 3 - - Clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 195.4 0.136 0.081 0.60 Yes Yes No 0.60 Non-Liquefiable

8.4 19.1 0.9 4.5 111 953 953 953 - - - - - 0.53 1.53 29.2 0.46 1.45 27.6 0.46 27.6 0.00 29.2 56.8 3 - - Clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 195.4 0.133 0.083 0.62 Yes Yes No 0.62 Non-Liquefiable

8.5 18.2 0.9 4.8 111 971 971 971 - - - - - 0.54 1.52 27.6 0.47 1.44 26.1 0.47 26.1 0.00 31.8 58.0 3 - - Clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 207.0 0.139 0.082 0.60 Yes Yes No 0.60 Non-Liquefiable

8.7 17.9 0.8 4.6 111 989 989 989 - - - - - 0.54 1.51 27.1 0.47 1.43 25.7 0.47 25.7 0.00 30.3 56.0 3 - - Clay 4 - - - Silt mixtures - clayey silt to silty clay Yes No 207.0 0.136 0.081 0.59 Yes Yes No 0.59 Non-Liquefiable From Dissipation Testing
Typical Winter (February Mean)
Station:

CPT ID:

CPT Location: Levee Crest (5 feet from center towards landside) Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) =
Groundwater Depth bgs During Exploration (ft) =
PROJECT NAME:

LEVEE SEGMENT:

Design Groundwater Elevation (ft) =
Location (Crest/Landside/Waterside)
DWR Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program
Normalization 1st Iteration

INPUT DATA FROM CPT

SOUNDING

OVERBURDEN
STRESS
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Task Area:

Table 1: CPT Based Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE Errata to Equation (5) were published the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Sep 2007. Page 1177.

1. Moss, R.E.S. , Seed, R.B., Kayen, R.E., Stewart, J.P., Der Kiureghian, A. and Cetin, K.O., 2006. "CPT-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of in Situ Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential". Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 8, August 2006, pp. 1032-1051, (doi 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:8(1032)).

Groundwater Elevation During Exploration (NAVD88) =

6. Robertson, P.K., and Wride (Fear), C.E., 1998. "Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using the Cone Penetration Test". Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35, pp. 442–459.

Normalization 5th Iteration Normalization: Internal Code

2. Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K. and Powell, J.J.M., 1997. Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice. Blackie Academic & Professional. London.

3. URS Corporation 2013. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis, Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Project, Version 14.

4. Seed, R.B., Cetin, K. O. Moss, R. E. S., Kammerer, A. M., Wu, J., Pestana, J. M., Riemer, M. F., Sancio, R.B., Bray, J. D., Kayen, R. E., Faris, A., 2003. "Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework". 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca .

5. Bray, J.D., Sancio, R.B., 2006. "Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils". Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 9, September 2006, pp. 1165-1177.

Thin Layer
TIP RESISTANCE CORRECTIONS: THIN LAYER, NORMALIZATION, AND FINES FINAL LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT CPT-BASED SOIL BEHAVIOR Soil Behavior Type, SBT Normalized Soil Behavior Type, SBTn

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS LIQUEFACTION CRITERIA
Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
Calculated Values
Total Number of Thin Layers (N) =
PROJECT NUMBER:

Reach ID:

Groundwater Depth bgs During Earthquake(ft) =
Return Period (Years) =
Peak Ground Acceleration (PHA, g) =
Ground Elevation (NAVD88) =
Enter thin layer depths and the corresponding average tip resistance representing thin layer and outside thin layer, and select Cthin Notes:
1- Thin layer correction can be only made for a standard cone (diameter = 1.4055") 2- Based on Reference 1, minimum tip resistance ratio (qcB)avg/(qcA)avg = 2, and maximum tip resistance ratio (qcB)avg/(qcA)avg = 10 are used 3- User can enter up to 30 thin layers
4- Interpolated Cthin is provided for maximum thin layer thickness of 2.4 feet (for (qcB)avg/(qcA)avg between 2 and 5) and 7.2 feet (for (qcB)avg/(qcA)avg between 5 and 10) 5- Cthin outside interpolation range can be selected by user (Figure 5, Reference 1) 6- Thin layer correction factor Cthin is capped at 1.8
User Error

1.4055 Warning 4 Alert
Layer NumberDepth to Top of LayerDepth to Bottom of LayerThin Layer Thickness, hAverage Tip Resistance in Thin Layer, (qcB)avrAverage Tip Resistance Outside Thin Layer, (qcA)avr(qcB)avg/(qcA)avgThin Layer Correction Factor, Cthin (Figure 5 - Digitized & Interpolated)Thin Layer Correction Factor, Cthin (Figure 5 - Selected by User)Corrected Tip Resistance for thin Layer, qc* Errors, Warnings and Alerts
Depth
Raw Tip Resistance, qc
Sleeve Friction, fsTotal Unit WeightSoil Behavior Type, SBTNormalized Soil Behavior Type, SBTn (-) (ft) (ft) (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (-) (-) (-) (tsf) (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (pcf) (-) (-) 1 11.0 12.5 1.5 80 20 4.0 1.38 1.38 110 0.7 45.3 0.9 118.0 7 8 2 15.0 16.0 1.0 210 70 3.0 1.47 1.47 309 0.8 48.3 1.2 115.0 6 8 3 22.5 24.0 1.5 256 120 2.1 1.23 1.23 315 1.0 54.2 1.4 115.0 6 8 4 34.5 36.9 2.4 100 40 2.5 1.11 1.11 111 1.1 47.5 1.5 115.0 6 8

1.3 38.5 1.4 115.058

1.5 29.5 1.3 115.048

1.6 26.1 1.3 111.039

1.8 28.1 1.4 111.039

2.0 37.0 1.6 115.048

2.1 45.6 1.7 115.058

2.3 49.1 1.7 115.058

2.5 53.9 1.9 115.058

2.6 63.5 2.2 115.
068

2.8 67.3 2.3 115.068

3.0 62.1 2.3 115.058

3.1 52.4 2.3 115.048

3.3 46.6 2.3 115.049

3.4 52.8 2.3 115.058

3.6 48.0 2.2 115.048

3.8 42.7 2.0 115.049

3.9 39.7 1.8 115.049

4.1 38.0 1.7 115.049

4.3 34.1 1.6 115.049

4.4 28.8 1.5 111.039

4.6 25.5 1.4 111.039

4.8 24.4 1.4 111.039

4.9 23.5 1.3 111.039

5.1 22.4 1.2 111.039

5.2 23.2 1.2 111.039

5.4 24.5 1.1 115.049

5.6 25.2 1.1 115.049

5.7 26.2 1.1 115.044

5.9 24.2 1.2 111.034

6.1 23.4 1.2 111.039

6.2 23.1 0.8 115.0
5 4

6.4 23.6 0.9 115.044

6.6 24.2 0.9 115.044

6.7 24.9 1.0 115.044

6.9 25.5 1.1 115.044

7.1 23.7 1.1 115.044

SELECTED CPT DATA
Cone Diameter (inch) =
Total Number of Thin Layers (N) =

THIN LAYER CORRECTION
048
12 16
20 24
28 32
36 40
44 48
52 56
60 64
68 72
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
ft
Tip Resistance q
c, tsf
References:

1. 2.

3. 4.

Notes and Instructions:

3. Legend for Color Code
July, 2008
Developed by
Verified with
Verified by
Calculated Values
Date
Khaled Chowdhury, PE, GE and Adil Shah, PE
Contributors:

Version 1.1
Date July, 2012
Version 1.2
Updated by Gyeong-Taek Hong, Kanax Kanagalingam, Erik Julian Update approved by Khaled Chowdhury and Michael Hughes
Verified with MS Office Excel 2010

SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS FOR ULE

DWR URBAN LEVEE GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS PROGRAM (ULE)

6. The spreadsheet is built to automatically calculate CSR values based on the τmax values on the tabs Crest_Tau, Landside_Tau, and Waterside_Tau. The τmax values are given at 0.5 ft. intervals. The maximum depth for crest τmax = 140 feet, landside τmax = 120 feet, and waterside τmax = 100 feet.

15. Depth of Liquefaction evaluation should be in accordance with the current Guidance Document for the ULE program.

9. Sampler Codes : S = SPT Standard Sampler, SW = SPT Standard Sampler with Slot for Liner But Liner Not Used, SCAL = California Sampler with 2.4 inch I.D., MCAL = California Sampler with 2.0 inch I.D. (Mike Lubbers, 2006)
Data Input By Analyst
Less Likely Liquefiable
CSR Interpolation by
Detail Check by
Ahmed Bayoumi, PhD and Anthony Deus
Gyeong-Taek Hong, PhD, PE
Michael Luebbers, GE, PE
MS Office Excel 2003 SP2, Part of MS Office Standard Edition 2003 Likely Liquefiable

5. CRR values are calculated using Reference 1 and CSR values are calculated based on τmax values presented in Reference 2.

7. To select τmax values, enter the following (in Row 23, Column AC):
- For borings located water-ward of a point one-third up the waterside slope of the levee, enter "Waterside" - For borings located land-ward of a point one-third up the landside slope of the levee, enter "Landside" - For borings located within the region one-third up the water side slopes and including the crest, enter "Crest"

12. In the absence of laboratory data for fines content (FC), the spreadsheet estimates fines content as: FC = 35% for CL, ML, CL-ML, OL, CH, MH, OH ; FC = 12% for GM, GC, GC-GM, SM, SC, SC-SM ; FC = 8% for GW-GM, GW-GC, GPGM, GP-GC, SW-SM, SW-SC, SP-SM, SP-SC (average of range shown on DWR Soil and Rock Logging Manual v1.3) ; FC = 5% for GP, GW, SP, SW. Any soil type except these soil types will result in "Error in USCS". For FC < 5%, FC = 0% used in accordance with Reference 1.

13. Liquefaction susceptibilty of fine-grained soils is assessed based on laboratory data in Column AM ("PI <10, LL<35, and w > 0.8 LL? (Yes/No)"). For intermittently loaded levees, CL materials are not considered susceptible to liquefaction.

For frequently loaded levees, the Atterberg Limits criteria above apply to CL materials. Analysts need to manually enter whether fine-grained soil is susceptible to liquefaction in Column AN ("Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No)") based on Column AM or evaluation of chacteristics based on soil deposits, in the absence of laboratory data.

Atterberg Limits data sould not be entered for coarse-grained soils.

14. The following equation was used to calculate the Sampler Correction, Cs for non standardized sampler configuration

11. Sampler Correction: For SW: Reference 1 was Used; For SCAL (Sampler Correction = 0.65) and MCAL (sampler correction = 0.8): Notes from Reference 4 (Section 5.4.5) and local practice info used.

4. The spreadsheet estimates the Factors of Safety against liquefaction in accordance with the procedure described in Reference 1. In accordance with Reference 2, FSL <1 is considered "Likely Liquefiable" and 1<FSL <1.25 is considered "Less Likely Liquefiable". User shall be responsible for interpretation of the FSL results.

Non-Liquefiable

10. Depth to sample is considered the distance between top of boring to the depth of the N value.

Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340 and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006)
Seed, R.B., et al, 2003, Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework. 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca (not used for spreadsheet equations)
Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction)
URS Corporation 2013. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Project Version 14

1. The user should understand the methodology and assumptions presented in the references before using this spreadsheet.

2. The results should be verified independently if the spreadsheet is used in a computer system different than the one indicated in the "verified with" cell. A hand calculation package should be prepared by the user.

8. In the normal distribution function of CRR, a Probability (PL) value of 15% was used in accordance with References 1 and 3.

Results of Analysis
Date January, 2014
Version 1.3
Updated by Erik Julian, Bryan Burnitt, Kanax Kanagalingam Update approved by Khaled Chowdhury
Verified with MS Office Excel 2010
100

01.0(1CCCN MAX(10, )))N MIN(30, 1 Cs EBR1 1 ⋅+⋅⋅⋅⋅ +=
C:\Users\KC_Fuerstenberger\Desktop\Copy of SPT LiquefactionV1 3 (Less Likely)SPT Based Liquefaction 8/6/2014
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=NfieldC

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 7.4 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 31.8 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.15 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 12.5 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 26.7 Energy Ratio = 84 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) NfieldUSCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf)Overburden Correction Factor, CNCorrection for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CEDrilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CBSampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only)Sampler Correction for Analysis, CsStick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CRN60N1,60Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, CfinesN1,60,CSCyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification
Liquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No)Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSLComment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 3 5 4 SM 115 575 575 575 1.6 1.4 H 7 1.10 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 3.4 0.75 5 7 20 20 1.2 9 0.126 117.8 0.133 0.95 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.95 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 10 6 ML 120 1175 1175 1175 1.3 1.4 H 7 1.10 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 4.9 0.83 8 10 59 35 1.3 13 0.141 228.7 0.126 1.11 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.11 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 15 6 SM 115 1750 1750 1750 1.1 1.4 H 7 1.10 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 6.4 0.90 8 9 25 25 1.2 11 0.107 303.8 0.113 0.95 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.95 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 20 9 SM 125 2375 2375 2375 0.9 1.4 H 7 1.10 S 8 1.13 1.00 7 7.9 0.94 13 12 12 1.1 13 0.115 357.5 0.098 1.18 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.18 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 28 10 CH 125 3375 3375 3294 0.8 1.4 H 7 1.10 S 8 1.13 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 15 12 35 1.3 15 0.120 423.5 0.084 1.44 No Yes Yes CH 51 24 No No No 1.44 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 15 33 6 ML 120 3975 3900 3582 0.7 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 11.9 0.98 8 6 74 35 1.4 9 0.074 461.0 0.084 0.88 Yes Yes Yes ML Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.88 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 17 35 5 ML 120 4215 4015 3697 0.7 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 12.5 0.99 7 5 59 35 1.5 7 0.067 474.9 0.083 0.80 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.80 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 19 40 8 ML 125 4840 4328 4010 0.7 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 14.0 0.99 11 8 35 1.4 11 0.082 509.8 0.083 0.99 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.99 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 21 45 10 SM 125 5465 4641 4323 0.7 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 15.5 0.99 14 9 38 35 1.3 12 0.093 542.8 0.082 1.14 Yes Yes Yes SM 31 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.14 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 23 50 0 SM 115 6040 4904 4586 0.6 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 0 1.10 1.00 7 17.1 1.00 0 0 51 35 193.7 2 0.041 574.1 0.081 0.50 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.50 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 25 55 20 SP-SM 125 6665 5217 4899 0.6 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 12 1.20 1.00 7 18.6 1.00 29 18 10 10 1.1 19 0.145 603.8 0.080 1.81 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 1.81 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 27 60 14 SP-SM 125 7290 5530 5212 0.6 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 8 1.13 1.00 7 20.1 1.00 20 12 8 1.1 13 0.091 631.9 0.079 1.15 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 1.15 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 29 65 16 SP-SM 125 7915 5843 5525 0.6 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 9 1.15 1.00 7 21.6 1.00 23 13 8 8 1.1 14 0.099 657.2 0.077 1.28 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 1.28 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 31 70 23 SP-SM 130 8565 6181 5863 0.6 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 13 1.21 1.00 7 23.2 1.00 33 19 8 1.1 20 0.147 682.4 0.076 1.94 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 1.94 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 33 75 32 SP-SM 130 9215 6519 6201 0.6 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 18 1.30 1.00 7 24.7 1.00 46 25 8 1.0 27 0.242 707.7 0.074 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).
35 80 28 SP-SM 130 9865 6857 6539 0.5 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 15 1.25 1.00 7 26.2 1.00 40 22 9 9 1.1 23 0.181 732.9 0.073 2.48 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 2.48 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 37 85 29 SP-SM 130 10515 7195 6877 0.5 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 15 1.25 1.00 7 27.7 1.00 41 22 8 1.1 23 0.180 755.7 0.071 2.52 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 2.52 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 39 90 18 SP-SM 125 11140 7508 7190 0.5 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 9 1.15 1.00 7 29.3 1.00 26 13 9 9 1.1 14 0.092 778.5 0.070 1.31 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 1.31 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 41 95 69 GP-GM 130 11790 7846 7528 0.5 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 30.8 1.00 99 50 8 1.0 52 1.524 801.4 0.069 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 42 100 48 GP-GM 130 12440 8184 7866 0.5 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 32.3 1.00 69 34 8 1.0 35 0.440 824.2 0.068 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 43 105 74 GP-GM 130 13090 8522 8204 0.5 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 36 1.30 1.00 7 33.8 1.00 106 51 8 1.0 53 1.664 847.0 0.067 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 44 110 55 SP-SM 130 13740 8860 8542 0.5 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 35.4 1.00 79 37 13 13 1.1 40 0.605 869.8 0.066 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 45 115 120 SP-SM 130 14390 9198 8880 0.5 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 56 1.30 1.00 7 36.9 1.00 171 80 8 1.0 83 15.058 892.6 0.065 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 46 120 51 SP-SM 130 15040 9536 9218 0.5 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 23 1.30 1.00 7 38.4 1.00 73 33 9 9 1.0 35 0.410 915.5 0.065 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 47 125 69 SP-SM 130 15690 9874 9556 0.5 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 31 1.30 1.00 7 39.9 1.00 99 44 8 1.0 46 0.938 938.3 0.064 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 48 130 112 SP-SM 130 16340 10212 9894 0.4 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 50 1.30 1.00 7 41.5 1.00 160 71 9 9 1.0 74 7.388 961.1 0.063 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 49 135 47 SP-SM 130 16990 10550 10232 0.4 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 43.0 1.00 67 29 8 1.0 31 0.285 983.9 0.063 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 50 135 83 SP-SM 130 16990 10550 10232 0.4 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 36 1.30 1.00 7 43.0 1.00 119 52 8 1.0 54 1.616 983.9 0.063 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

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

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: Sacramento River
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station:

PROJECT NUMBER:

Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable

APPENDIX K

APPENDIX K
The Development of a 200-year Return
Period Seismic Hazard Map for the
Urban Levee Evaluations Project Region

URS Corporation
2870 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95833
Tel: 916.679.2000
Fax: 916.679.2900
Memorandum
Contract 4600008101

Urban Geotechnical Evaluations Program

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

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

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

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

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

Memorandum

2012_seismicmemorandum Page 2 of 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memorandum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memorandum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memorandum

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

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

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

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

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

0.11 0.11

0.13 0.2

0.15 0.3

0.25 0.35

0.4 0.4

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

39.5° N 39.5° N
39° N 39° N

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

MARYSVILLE, SACRAMENTO, AND

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

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

AMPLIFICATION OF THE PHAs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.0 (0.6)

2.0 (0.2)
Characterization from Unruh (2006).

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

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

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

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

0.6 (0.5)

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

Cull CanyonLafayette-Reliz Valley

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

1.0 (0.6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.0 (0.6)

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

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

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

0.5 (0.4)

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

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

0.5 (0.4)

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

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

0.5 (0.4)

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

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

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

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

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

6.5 (0.4)

6.75 (0.4)

0.1 (0.3)

0.5 (0.4)

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

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

Monterey BayTularcitos

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

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

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

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

1.5 (0.6)

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

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

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

0.4 (0.6)

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

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

1.0 (0.35)

2.0 (0.35)

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

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

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

0.6 (0.6)

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

1.0 (0.35)

2.0 (0.35)

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

0.6 (0.6)

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

0.3 (0.6)

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

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

1.0 (0.6)

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

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

3.0 (0.4)

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

Verona/Williams
Thrust System

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

0.7 (0.5)

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

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

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

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

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

0.7 (0.5)

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

0.3 (0.6)

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

17.5 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.5 0.1 (0.2)

0.3 (0.6)

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

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

2.0 (0.3)

3.0 (0.3)

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

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

1.0 (0.3)

2.0 (0.3)

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

2.0 (0.2)

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

2.0 (0.2)

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

2.0 (0.2)

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

2.0 (0.2)

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

0.3 (0.6)

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

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

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

0.5 (0.6)

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

0.04 (0.6)

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

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

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

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

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

1.25 (0.6)

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

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

1.25 (0.6)

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

1.25 (0.6)

2.0 (0.1)
Foothills fault system
(North)

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

0.02 (0.6)

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

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

0.02 (0.6)

0.06 (0.2)
Foothills fault system
(South)

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

0.02 (0.6)

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

0.1 (0.6)

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

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

0.1 (0.6)

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

0.1 (0.6)

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

Montezuma Hills
(zone)

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

6.25 (0.4)

6.5 (0.3)

0.05 (0.3)

0.25 (0.4)

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

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

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

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

6.25 (0.4)

6.5 (0.3)

0.2 (0.2)

0.4 (0.5)

0.6 (0.2)

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

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

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

0.5 (0.4)

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

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

0.5 (0.4)

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

6.0 (0.6)

6.25 (0.1)

0.1 (0.2)

0.3 (0.6)

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

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

0.4 (0.5)

0.6 (0.2)

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

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

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

6.25 (0.4)

6.5 (0.3)

0.2 (0.2)

0.4 (0.5)

0.6 (0.2)

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

6.25 (0.4)

6.5 (0.3)

0.05 (0.3)

0.10.4)

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

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

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

6.5 (0.4)

6.75 (0.4)

0.07 (0.3)

0.25 (0.4)

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

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

6.5 (0.4)

6.75 (0.4)

0.07 (0.3)

0.25 (0.4)

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

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

7.1 (0.4)

0.01 (0.2)

0.04 (0.6)

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

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

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

2.2 (0.6)

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

Butt Creek (aka Butt
Valley) fault

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

0.15 (0.6)

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

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

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

6.7 (0.6) 0.15 (0.7)

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

6.8 (0.6) 0.15 (0.7)

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

6.5 (0.6)

6.8 (0.2)

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

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

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

7.3 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3)

7.6 (0.2) 2.0 (0.4)

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

0.1 (0.4)

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

Mohawk Valley fault
zone

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

7.3 (0.6)

7.6 (0.2)
Slip Rate (0.4):

0.5 (0.2)

1.0 (0.6)

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

7.4 (0.6)

7.7 (0.2)
Slip Rate (0.4):

0.5 (0.2)

1.0 (0.6)

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

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

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

6.9 (0.6)

7.2 (0.2)

0.1 (0.2)

0.5 (0.6)

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

7.0 (0.6)

7.3 (0.2)

0.1 (0.2)

0.5 (0.6)

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

6.5 (0.6)

6.8 (0.2)

0.15 (0.7)

1.3 (0.1)

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

6.8 (0.6)

7.1 (0.2)

0.01 (0.3)

0.5 (0.5)

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

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

Eastern Truckee fault
zone

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

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

6.4 (0.6) 0.01 (0.6)

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

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

6.8 (0.6)

7.1 (0.2)

0.01 (0.3)

0.5 (0.5)

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

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

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

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

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

7.0 (0.6) 0.6 (0.6)

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

6.8 (0.6) 0.5 (0.6)

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

7.1 (0.6) 2.0 (0.6)

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

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

7.1 (0.6) 1.5 (0.6)

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

6.9 (0.6) 0.5 (0.6)

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

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

7.1 (0.6) 1.0 (0.6)

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

6.9 (0.6) 0.5 (0.6)

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

6.8 (0.6) 0.5 (0.6)

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

0.1 (0.4)

0.15 (0.3)
Page et al. (1997) estimated slip rates based on vertical separation of Plio-Pleistocene basalts and assumptions about vertical to horizontal slip ratios and determined a value of 0.07-0.1 mm/yr.
1 Probability of Activity: Independent seismic source (M 6.0) and repeated displacements in late-Quaternary or historical activity (1.0); Late Pleistocene or inferred association with historical seismicity (0.7); activity inferred from fault geometry considered likely to move under current tectonic regime (0.5).
2 Weight in parentheses assigned according to likelihood of occurrence of rupture scenario. 3 Rupture length in kilometers.
4 Seismogenic depth. Unless otherwise noted, depth to top of fault is 0, and value reflects depth to base of rupture plane. Unless otherwise stated, weights are 0.4 for the best estimate and 0.3 for the upper and lower bound estimates. 5 Inclination of fault plane, measured from the horizontal. Dips are not varied unless otherwise stated. Weights are 0.4 for the best estimate and 0.3 for the upper and lower bound estimates. 6 Direction of inclination of the fault plane. N/A infers a vertical fault plane. 7 SS – strike-slip; R – reverse; OR – oblique-reverse.
8 Unless otherwise stated, uncertainties in the best estimate magnitude are 0.3 magnitude unit. Weights are 0.2, 0.6, and 0.2 unless otherwise stated. A single magnitude value is weighted 1.0. 9 Slip rate based on paleoseismic data. Unless otherwise stated, weights in parentheses are 0.2, 0.6, and 0.2. 24001006.001A/SAC25R179413 April 16, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder

APPENDIX D

UPDATED SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS FOR TARGETED SEGMENTS _____________________________________________________________________ ARSL-4
2F-11-160
ARSL-6
WRDA_2F-11-03_V1.3
2F-97-31_V1.3
ARFCD-ARS-B-7_V1.3
SREL-9
2F_05_G7_1_V1.3
2F_05_G7_2_V1.3
WM0009_017B_V1.3
BLNL-2
2F-10-07
BLNL-4
SSS_GER1D1D_2F-10-01_V1.3
SSS_GER1D1D_2F-10-02_V1.3
SSS_GER1D1D_B-2_V1.3
SSS_GER1D1D_B-12_V1.3
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=NfieldCE).

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 20.3 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 31.7 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 20.3 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.7 Energy Ratio = 93 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, C fines N1,60,CS
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)
Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No) Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
1 3 23 SM 125 375 375 375 1.6 1.6 SFA 6 1.05 S 37 1.30 1.00 7 2.7 0.75 28 45 12 1.1 48 2.338 67.6 0.117 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 5.5 10 SM 115 663 663 663 1.6 1.6 SFA 6 1.05 SCAL 16 1.23 0.65 7 3.5 0.75 8 13 37 35 1.3 16 0.188 122.1 0.120 1.57 No No Yes SM 19 Yes Yes Yes No 1.57 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 8 8 SM 115 950 950 950 1.5 1.6 SFA 6 1.05 S 12 1.17 1.00 7 4.3 0.80 10 15 12 1.1 16 0.172 174.9 0.120 1.44 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.44 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10.5 6 SM 115 1238 1238 1238 1.3 1.6 SFA 6 1.05 SCAL 8 1.11 0.65 7 5.0 0.84 5 7 43 35 1.4 9 0.095 226.0 0.119 0.80 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.80 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 5 SM 115 1525 1525 1525 1.1 1.6 SFA 6 1.05 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 7 8 38 35 1.4 11 0.101 260.2 0.111 0.91 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.91 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 15.5 8 SM 115 1813 1813 1813 1.1 1.6 SFA 6 1.05 SCAL 8 1.14 0.65 7 6.6 0.90 8 8 12 1.1 9 0.083 292.6 0.105 0.79 Yes No Yes SM 11 - Yes No 0.79 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 18 14 SM 125 2125 2125 2125 1.0 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 14 1.22 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 20 19 12 1.1 21 0.194 317.8 0.097 2.00 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 20.5 16 ML 125 2438 2438 2438 0.9 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 14 1.24 0.65 7 8.1 0.94 15 14 50 35 1.3 17 0.143 341.8 0.091 1.57 No No Yes ML 22 2 12 Judgment Needed Yes No 1.57 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 23 8 CL 125 2750 2750 2750 0.9 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 7 1.11 1.00 7 8.8 0.95 12 10 65 35 1.3 13 0.101 360.8 0.085 1.18 Yes No Yes CL 25 9 19 Judgment Needed No No 1.18 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 25.5 25 CL 125 3063 3063 3063 0.8 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 20 1.30 0.65 7 9.6 0.96 24 20 35 1.2 24 0.222 379.8 0.081 2.75 No No No CL - No No 2.75 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 28 125 GW-GM 130 3388 3388 3388 0.8 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 96 1.30 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 188 145 8 1.0 150 2666.679 398.8 0.077 3.00 No No No GW-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 30.5 109 GW-GM 130 3713 3713 3713 0.7 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 80 1.30 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 107 79 6 6 1.0 81 15.053 417.3 0.073 3.00 No No No GW-GM 6 - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 32.5 250 GW-GM 130 3973 3924 3924 0.7 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 178 1.30 1.00 7 11.7 0.98 380 271 8 1.0 281 47661027.937 430.5 0.071 3.00 No Yes No GW-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 14 35.5 250 GW-GM 130 4363 4127 4127 0.7 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 174 1.30 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 382 266 8 1.0 275 30754901.190 450.2 0.071 3.00 No Yes No GW-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 37.5 125 GW-GM 130 4623 4262 4262 0.7 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 86 1.30 1.00 7 13.3 0.99 192 131 8 1.0 136 888.482 463.4 0.071 3.00 No Yes No GW-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 16 40 125 GW-GM 130 4948 4431 4431 0.7 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 84 1.30 1.00 7 14.0 0.99 192 129 8 1.0 134 741.051 479.9 0.070 3.00 No Yes No GW-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 17 42.5 250 GW-GM 130 5273 4600 4600 0.7 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 165 1.30 1.00 7 14.8 0.99 385 254 8 1.0 262 11519082.745 495.4 0.070 3.00 No Yes No GW-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 18 45.5 38 ML 125 5648 4788 4788 0.6 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 59 38 35 1.2 45 0.937 513.7 0.070 3.00 No Yes No ML - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Adjacent sample has PI≥10, LL≥35.
19 48 81 ML 125 5960 4945 4945 0.6 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 52 1.30 0.65 7 16.5 1.00 81 52 76 35 1.2 61 3.031 528.5 0.069 3.00 No Yes No ML 46 17 36 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. PI≥10, LL≥35. 20 50.5 33 SP-SM 130 6285 5114 5114 0.6 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 51 32 10 10 1.1 34 0.395 543.0 0.069 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 21 53 46 ML 125 6598 5270 5270 0.6 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 28 1.30 1.00 7 18.0 1.00 71 44 71 35 1.2 52 1.517 557.2 0.069 3.00 No Yes No ML 35 8 29 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. LL≥35. 22 55.5 123 SC 130 6923 5439 5439 0.6 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 75 1.30 0.65 7 18.7 1.00 124 75 41 35 1.2 87 21.696 571.1 0.068 3.00 No Yes No SC 47 22 38 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Fines content >20%. 23 58 40 SM 130 7248 5608 5608 0.6 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 19.5 1.00 62 37 44 35 1.2 44 0.830 584.7 0.068 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 24 60.5 125 SM 130 7573 5777 5777 0.6 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 74 1.30 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 194 114 34 34 1.2 131 571.702 597.7 0.067 3.00 No Yes No SM 49 17 38 No Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 25 63 121 SM 130 7898 5946 5946 0.6 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 70 1.30 1.00 7 21.0 1.00 187 109 12 1.1 114 163.577 610.0 0.067 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).
26 65.5 167 SM 130 8223 6115 6115 0.6 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 96 1.30 0.65 7 21.8 1.00 168 96 12 1.1 101 60.620 622.4 0.066 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 27 68 63 CL 125 8535 6272 6272 0.6 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 36 1.30 1.00 7 22.6 1.00 98 55 70 35 1.2 65 3.803 634.7 0.066 3.00 No Yes No CL 37 14 34 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 28 70.5 250 CL 125 8848 6428 6428 0.6 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 139 1.30 0.65 7 23.3 1.00 252 140 35 1.2 162 5601.866 647.0 0.065 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 29 73 53 SP-SM 130 9173 6597 6597 0.6 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 24.1 1.00 82 45 10 10 1.1 48 1.042 659.3 0.065 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 30 75.5 29 SP-SM 130 9498 6766 6766 0.5 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 16 1.28 1.00 7 24.8 1.00 45 24 8 1.0 26 0.200 671.6 0.065 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 31 78 101 ML 125 9810 6923 6923 0.5 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 54 1.30 0.65 7 25.6 1.00 102 55 58 35 1.2 64 3.567 683.9 0.064 3.00 No Yes No ML 44 14 39 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 32 80.5 41 ML 125 10123 7079 7079 0.5 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 26.4 1.00 64 34 35 1.2 40 0.592 695.9 0.064 3.00 No Yes No ML - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 33 83 116 ML 125 10435 7236 7236 0.5 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 61 1.30 0.65 7 27.1 1.00 117 61 35 1.2 72 6.280 706.8 0.063 3.00 No Yes No ML - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 34 85.5 42 CL 125 10748 7392 7392 0.5 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 27.9 1.00 65 34 35 1.2 40 0.589 717.7 0.063 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 35 88 36 CL 125 11060 7549 7549 0.5 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 19 1.30 1.00 7 28.7 1.00 56 29 50 35 1.2 34 0.377 728.5 0.063 3.00 No Yes No CL 37 13 33 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 36 90.5 75 CL 125 11373 7705 7705 0.5 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 38 1.30 0.65 7 29.4 1.00 76 38 35 1.2 46 0.866 739.4 0.062 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 37 94.5 42 CL 125 11873 7956 7956 0.5 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 30.6 1.00 65 33 35 1.2 39 0.520 756.8 0.062 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 38 99 84 SP 130 12458 8260 8260 0.5 1.6 M 4.3 1.00 S 41 1.30 1.00 7 32.0 1.00 130 64 5 1.0 66 3.804 776.3 0.061 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

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

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: American River
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
American River (South Bank): ARSL-4 Results of Analysis SAFCA: American River/South Sacramento Streams Basin Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report
R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 1359+23
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
NA, used Avg. Winter WSE
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
4/4/2024
Drilled Nov. 2011
2F-11-160
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/6/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/SPSR - AR-SSB/Liq (updated)/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_SB/ARSL-4 (1335+86 to 1381+93)/2F-11-160_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 5/8/2024
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=NfieldCE).

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 23.9 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 30.6 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 24.7 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 29.7 Energy Ratio = 81 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, C fines N1,60,CS
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)
Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No) Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
1 3 80 SC-SM 130 390 390 390 1.6 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 128 1.30 0.65 7 2.7 0.75 61 97 16 16 1.1 104 157.240 63.8 0.106 3.00 No No No SC-SM 20 - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 5.5 12 SM 125 703 703 703 1.6 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 19 1.27 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 14 22 12 1.1 24 0.333 115.0 0.106 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 8 40 SM 130 1028 1028 1028 1.4 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 56 1.30 0.65 7 4.3 0.80 32 45 12 1.1 48 1.754 164.7 0.104 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10.5 36 SM 130 1353 1353 1353 1.2 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 44 1.30 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 47 57 12 1.1 60 4.269 212.7 0.102 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 12 SM 125 1665 1665 1665 1.1 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 13 1.20 0.65 7 5.8 0.87 11 12 12 1.1 13 0.112 245.2 0.096 1.17 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.17 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 15.5 10 SM 125 1978 1978 1978 1.0 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 10 1.15 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 14 14 12 1.1 15 0.130 276.0 0.091 1.43 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.43 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 18 16 SM 125 2290 2290 2290 0.9 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 15 1.25 0.65 7 7.3 0.92 15 14 47 35 1.3 18 0.148 299.6 0.085 1.74 No No Yes SM 8 - Yes No 1.74 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 20.5 13 SM 125 2603 2603 2603 0.9 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 11 1.19 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 19 17 12 1.1 18 0.147 322.0 0.080 1.83 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.83 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 23 14 SM 125 2915 2915 2915 0.8 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 12 1.19 0.65 7 8.8 0.95 13 11 12 1.1 12 0.093 339.4 0.076 1.23 Yes No Yes SM 9 - Yes No 1.23 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 25.5 11 SM 125 3228 3228 3228 0.8 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 9 1.14 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 16 13 12 1.1 14 0.104 356.7 0.072 1.45 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.45 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 30.5 12 SM 125 3853 3853 3805 0.7 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 9 1.14 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 12 9 41 35 1.3 11 0.081 391.1 0.067 1.21 Yes Yes Yes SM 17 - Yes Yes 1.21 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0≤FSL≤1.25. 12 35.5 30 GP 130 4503 4197 4143 0.7 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 46 32 3 0 1.0 32 0.362 422.1 0.066 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 13 40.5 59 SP 130 5153 4535 4481 0.7 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 39 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 91 60 2 0 1.0 60 3.031 452.8 0.066 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 14 45 150 SP 130 5738 4839 4785 0.6 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 96 1.30 1.00 7 15.5 0.99 232 149 5 1.0 152 2930.280 478.5 0.065 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 50.5 47 CL 125 6425 5183 5130 0.6 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 73 45 55 35 1.2 53 1.719 508.9 0.064 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 16 55.5 72 SP-SC 130 7075 5521 5468 0.6 1.4 M 4 1.00 SCAL 43 1.30 0.65 7 18.7 1.00 63 38 7 7 1.0 39 0.595 535.5 0.064 3.00 No Yes No SP-SC 23 - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 17 60.5 81 SM 130 7725 5859 5806 0.6 1.4 M 4 1.00 S 47 1.30 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 109 64 12 1.1 67 4.829 561.0 0.063 3.00 No Yes No SM 36 8 No Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).
18 65.5 102 SP 130 8375 6197 6144 0.6 1.4 M 4 1.00 S 58 1.30 1.00 7 21.8 1.00 138 78 5 1.0 80 12.158 585.0 0.062 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 19 70.5 85 SC 130 9025 6535 6482 0.6 1.4 M 4 1.00 SCAL 47 1.30 0.65 7 23.3 1.00 75 41 40 35 1.2 49 1.150 609.0 0.061 3.00 No Yes No SC 36 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 20 75.5 112 ML 125 9650 6848 6795 0.5 1.4 M 4 1.00 S 61 1.30 1.00 7 24.8 1.00 151 82 35 1.2 95 36.165 633.0 0.061 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 21 80.5 200 ML 125 10275 7161 7108 0.5 1.4 M 4 1.00 SCAL 106 1.30 0.65 7 26.4 1.00 175 93 35 1.2 107 91.902 656.7 0.060 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
4/4/2024
Drilled Dec. 2010
WRDA_2F-11-03
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/6/2024
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From WRDA_2F-11-03
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
American River (South Bank): ARSL-6
SAFCA: American River/South Sacramento Streams Basin Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report
R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 1469+25
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: American River
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/SPSR - AR-SSB/Liq (updated)/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_SB/ARSL-6 (1431+25 to 1635+49)/WRDA_2F-11-03_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 5/8/2024
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=NfieldCE).

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 27.8 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 34.1 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 27.8 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 34.1 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) NfieldUSCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CEDrilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CBSampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only)Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CRN60N1,60Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, CfinesN1,60,CSCyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No)Final Assessment(Yes/No) (Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
1 1.5 13 SM 125 188 188 188 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 21 1.25 1.00 7 2.3 0.75 13 20 12 1.1 22 0.414 32.2 0.112 3.00 No No Yes SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 3.5 6 ML 120 428 428 428 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.10 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 6 9 35 1.3 13 0.161 74.2 0.113 1.43 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.43 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 5.5 6 SC-SM 115 658 658 658 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.10 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 6 9 14 14 1.1 11 0.124 115.0 0.114 1.09 Yes No Yes SC-SM 25 6 19 Judgment Needed Yes No 1.09 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 7.5 8 ML 120 898 898 898 1.5 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.14 1.00 7 4.1 0.79 8 12 35 1.3 16 0.168 154.9 0.112 1.50 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.50 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 9.5 6 SC-SM 115 1128 1128 1128 1.3 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 6 9 45 35 1.3 12 0.115 193.6 0.112 1.03 Yes No Yes SC-SM 27 6 10 Judgment Needed Yes No 1.03 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 11.5 4 ML 115 1358 1358 1358 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.3 0.85 4 5 35 1.5 8 0.083 225.7 0.108 0.77 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.77 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 13.5 6 ML 120 1598 1598 1598 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 5.9 0.88 7 8 35 1.4 11 0.097 251.7 0.102 0.95 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.95 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 15.5 8 CL 125 1848 1848 1848 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 9 10 35 1.3 13 0.111 276.0 0.097 1.14 Yes No Yes CL - No No 1.14 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 18.5 11 ML 125 2223 2223 2223 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.14 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 13 13 35 1.3 16 0.134 304.3 0.089 1.51 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.51 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 22 16 ML 125 2660 2660 2660 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 14 1.20 1.00 7 8.5 0.95 20 17 35 1.2 21 0.189 332.4 0.081 2.33 No No Yes ML - Yes No 2.33 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 25.5 13 ML 125 3098 3098 3098 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.15 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 16 13 54 35 1.3 17 0.128 356.7 0.075 1.71 No No Yes ML 30 2 17 Judgment Needed Yes No 1.71 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 29 12 SC 125 3535 3535 3535 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 10.7 0.97 15 12 12 1.1 13 0.091 381.1 0.070 1.30 No No Yes SC - Yes No 1.30 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 31.5 160 GW-GM 130 3860 3860 3860 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 115 1.30 0.65 7 11.4 0.98 134 96 10 10 1.0 101 64.939 397.3 0.067 3.00 No No No GW-GM 5 Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 14 35.5 124 GP-GM 130 4380 4290 4290 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 85 1.30 0.65 7 12.6 0.99 104 71 11 11 1.1 75 9.181 422.1 0.064 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM 19 4 15 Judgment Needed Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 40.5 62 GP-GM 130 5030 4628 4628 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 41 1.30 0.65 7 14.2 0.99 52 34 8 8 1.0 36 0.483 452.8 0.064 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM 10 Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 16 45.5 113 ML 125 5655 4941 4941 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 72 1.30 0.65 7 15.7 0.99 96 61 35 1.2 71 6.735 481.3 0.063 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 17 50.5 32 SM 130 6305 5279 5279 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 42 26 12 1.1 28 0.249 508.9 0.063 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 18 55.5 25 SM 130 6955 5617 5617 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 33 20 12 1.1 21 0.150 535.5 0.062 2.42 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 2.42 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 19 60.5 24 SW-SM 130 7605 5955 5955 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 14 1.21 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 31 18 11 11 1.1 20 0.132 561.0 0.061 2.16 No Yes Yes SW-SM 22 2 24 Yes Yes No 2.16 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).
20 65.5 56 CL 125 8230 6268 6268 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 32 1.30 1.00 7 21.8 1.00 73 41 51 35 1.2 49 1.185 585.0 0.061 3.00 No Yes No CL 41 16 23 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 21 69 68 ML 125 8668 6487 6487 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 38 1.30 1.00 7 22.9 1.00 89 50 35 1.2 58 2.337 601.8 0.060 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

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

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: American River
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
American River (South Bank): ARSL-6 Results of Analysis SAFCA: American River/South Sacramento Streams Basin Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report
R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 1544+03
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
NA, used Avg. Winter WSE
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
4/4/2024
Drilled April 1997
2F-97-31
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/6/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/SPSR - AR-SSB/Liq (updated)/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_SB/ARSL-6 (1431+25 to 1635+49)/2F-97-31_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 5/8/2024
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=NfieldCE).

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 15.8 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 40.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 28.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 27.7 Energy Ratio = 80 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf) Effective Overburden
Pressure During Drilling,
σv' (psf)
Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf)Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)
Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No)Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
1 2.5 24 ML 125 313 313 313 1.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 38 1.30 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 25 40 35 1.2 48 2.467 53.3 0.111 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. Drilling method and borehole diameter not noted on log. Assumed 6" diameter. 2 4.5 20 CL 125 563 563 563 1.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 32 1.30 1.00 7 3.2 0.75 21 34 35 1.2 40 1.179 94.7 0.109 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 6.5 19 ML 125 813 813 813 1.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 20 32 35 1.2 38 0.919 135.1 0.108 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 8.5 28 ML 125 1063 1063 1063 1.4 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 38 1.30 1.00 7 4.4 0.81 32 43 35 1.2 51 2.272 174.4 0.107 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 10.5 24 CL 125 1313 1313 1313 1.2 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 28 35 55 35 1.2 41 1.036 212.7 0.105 3.00 No No No CL 27 12 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 12.5 51 CL 125 1563 1563 1563 1.1 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 58 1.30 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 62 70 35 1.2 82 20.273 238.7 0.099 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 14.5 97 CL 125 1813 1813 1813 1.1 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 102 1.30 1.00 7 6.2 0.89 121 127 35 1.2 147 2569.366 264.7 0.095 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 16.5 52 GM 130 2073 2073 2073 1.0 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 51 1.30 1.00 7 6.9 0.91 66 65 12 1.1 69 7.142 285.4 0.090 3.00 No No No GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 20.5 18 GW 130 2593 2593 2593 0.9 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 16 1.24 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 24 21 2 0 1.0 21 0.182 322.0 0.081 2.25 No No Yes GW - Yes No 2.25 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 30.5 95 GM 130 3893 3893 3715 0.7 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 68 1.30 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 130 93 7 7 1.0 96 46.987 391.1 0.068 3.00 No Yes No GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 11 40 200 GW 130 5128 5128 4357 0.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 125 1.30 1.00 7 14.0 0.99 277 173 5 1.0 177 19500.879 449.9 0.067 3.00 No Yes No GW - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 12 45.5 16 GW 130 5843 5499 4729 0.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 10 1.15 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 22 13 5 1.0 14 0.092 481.3 0.066 1.39 No Yes Yes GW - Yes No 1.39 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 13 50.5 19 SP 125 6468 5812 5042 0.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 11 1.17 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 27 16 5 1.0 16 0.106 508.9 0.066 1.62 No Yes Yes SP - Yes No 1.62 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 14 55.5 25 SP-SM 130 7118 6150 5380 0.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 14 1.23 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 35 20 14 14 1.1 22 0.159 535.5 0.065 2.46 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 2.46 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).
15 60.5 43 SP 130 7768 6488 5718 0.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 60 33 5 1.0 34 0.402 561.0 0.064 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 16 65.5 55 SP 130 8418 6826 6056 0.5 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 21.8 1.00 77 42 5 1.0 43 0.745 585.0 0.063 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 17 68.5 32 ML 125 8793 7014 6244 0.5 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 17 1.28 1.00 7 22.7 1.00 45 24 35 1.2 29 0.264 599.4 0.062 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 18 75.5 66 ML 125 9668 7452 6682 0.5 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 24.8 1.00 92 48 35 1.2 56 2.008 633.0 0.062 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
4/4/2024
Drilled Aug. 2005
ARFCD-ARS-B-7
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/6/2024
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From ARFCD-ARS-B-7
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
American River (South Bank): ARSL-6
SAFCA: American River/South Sacramento Streams Basin Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report
R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 1611+00
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: American River
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/SPSR - AR-SSB/Liq (updated)/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_SB/ARSL-6 (1431+25 to 1635+49)/ARFCD-ARS-B-7_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 5/8/2024
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=NfieldCE

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -10.7 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 43.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.15 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 10.5 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 21.8 Energy Ratio = 80 Mw = 6.7 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, C fines N1,60,CS
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)
Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No) Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
1 1 14 SM 125 125 125 125 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 2.1 0.75 16 26 12 1.1 28 0.726 24.1 0.125 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 4 15 CL 125 500 500 500 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 3.0 0.75 17 28 35 1.2 33 0.753 94.8 0.123 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 7 11 SM 125 875 875 875 1.5 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 17 1.23 1.00 7 4.0 0.78 13 20 12 1.1 21 0.264 163.0 0.121 2.18 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.18 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10 5 ML 120 1235 1235 1235 1.3 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 4.9 0.83 6 8 35 1.4 11 0.111 228.7 0.120 0.92 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.92 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 1 ML 115 1580 1580 1580 1.1 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 1 1.10 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 1 2 54 35 2.3 3 0.059 275.2 0.113 0.52 Yes No Yes ML 29 2 Yes Yes No 0.52 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 16 6 ML 120 1940 1940 1940 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 6.7 0.91 8 8 35 1.3 11 0.101 314.5 0.105 0.96 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.96 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 18 4 CL 120 2180 2180 2180 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 6 5 92 35 1.5 8 0.075 336.0 0.100 0.75 Yes No Yes CL 40 17 No No No 0.75 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 20 14 CL 125 2430 2430 2430 0.9 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 13 1.21 1.00 7 7.9 0.94 20 18 35 1.2 23 0.218 357.5 0.096 2.28 No No Yes CL - No No 2.28 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 22 10 CL 125 2680 2680 2668 0.9 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 9 1.14 1.00 7 8.5 0.95 15 13 35 1.3 16 0.131 374.0 0.091 1.44 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.44 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 10 24 16 CL 125 2930 2930 2793 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 13 1.22 1.00 7 9.1 0.96 23 19 35 1.2 24 0.232 390.5 0.091 2.55 No Yes No CL - No No 2.55 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 11 26 31 CL 125 3180 3180 2918 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 9.8 0.96 46 36 35 1.2 43 0.977 407.0 0.091 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 12 28 17 CL 125 3430 3430 3043 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 13 1.22 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 25 19 35 1.2 24 0.225 423.5 0.090 2.49 No Yes No CL - No No 2.49 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 13 30 18 CL 125 3680 3680 3168 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 13 1.22 1.00 7 11.0 0.98 27 20 35 1.2 24 0.233 440.0 0.090 2.58 No Yes No CL - No No 2.58 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 14 32 16 CL 125 3930 3930 3294 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 11 1.19 1.00 7 11.6 0.98 24 17 35 1.2 21 0.183 454.0 0.090 2.04 No Yes Yes CL - No No 2.04 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 15 34 23 ML 125 4180 4180 3419 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 16 1.28 1.00 7 12.2 0.98 35 24 35 1.2 29 0.325 467.9 0.089 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 16 36 28 CL 125 4430 4430 3544 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 19 1.30 1.00 7 12.8 0.99 42 28 35 1.2 34 0.471 481.9 0.088 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 17 38 30 CL 125 4680 4680 3669 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 13.4 0.99 45 30 35 1.2 36 0.520 495.9 0.088 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 18 40 37 CL 125 4930 4930 3794 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 14.0 0.99 56 36 35 1.2 43 0.866 509.8 0.087 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 19 42 31 CL 125 5180 5180 3920 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 19 1.30 1.00 7 14.6 0.99 47 29 35 1.2 35 0.492 523.2 0.087 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 20 44 13 CL 125 5430 5368 4045 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.12 1.00 7 15.2 0.99 17 11 35 1.3 14 0.098 536.3 0.086 1.14 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 1.14 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 21 46 21 ML 125 5680 5493 4170 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.19 1.00 7 15.8 0.99 28 17 51 35 1.2 21 0.166 549.2 0.086 1.94 No Yes Yes ML 31 7 Yes Yes No 1.94 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 22 49 40 ML 125 6055 5681 4358 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 16.8 1.00 53 32 35 1.2 38 0.578 568.0 0.085 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 23 52 15 ML 125 6430 5868 4546 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 17.7 1.00 20 12 35 1.3 15 0.104 586.2 0.084 1.24 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.24 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0≤FSL≤1.25. 24 55 17 SM 125 6805 6056 4733 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.14 1.00 7 18.6 1.00 23 13 12 1.1 14 0.097 603.8 0.083 1.17 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 1.17 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0≤FSL≤1.25. 25 58 23 ML 125 7180 6244 4921 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.20 1.00 7 19.5 1.00 31 17 35 1.2 22 0.166 620.9 0.082 2.02 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 2.02 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).
26 61 17 ML 125 7555 6432 5109 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 9 1.14 1.00 7 20.4 1.00 23 13 35 1.3 16 0.110 637.0 0.081 1.36 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.36 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 27 64 25 ML 125 7930 6620 5297 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 14 1.21 1.00 7 21.3 1.00 33 18 35 1.2 23 0.177 652.1 0.080 2.21 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 2.21 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 28 67 13 ML 125 8305 6807 5485 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 22.3 1.00 17 9 35 1.3 12 0.081 667.3 0.079 1.02 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.02 Less Likely Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 29 70 40 CL 125 8680 6995 5672 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 23.2 1.00 53 29 35 1.2 34 0.415 682.4 0.078 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 30 73 25 CL 125 9055 7183 5860 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.20 1.00 7 24.1 1.00 33 18 35 1.2 22 0.161 697.6 0.077 2.08 No Yes Yes CL - No No 2.08 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 31 76 19 CL 125 9430 7371 6048 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.15 1.00 7 25.0 1.00 25 13 35 1.3 17 0.110 712.7 0.077 1.44 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.44 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 32 79 16 CL 125 9805 7559 6236 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.12 1.00 7 25.9 1.00 21 11 35 1.3 14 0.090 727.9 0.076 1.19 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 1.19 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 33 82 13 CL 125 10180 7746 6424 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 26.8 1.00 17 9 35 1.3 12 0.074 742.0 0.075 0.99 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 0.99 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 34 85 14 ML 125 10555 7934 6611 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 27.7 1.00 19 9 35 1.3 12 0.077 755.7 0.074 1.04 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.04 Less Likely Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 35 88 28 CH 125 10930 8122 6799 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 14 1.21 1.00 7 28.7 1.00 37 19 35 1.2 23 0.168 769.4 0.074 2.28 No Yes Yes CH - No No 2.28 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 36 91 30 CL 125 11305 8310 6987 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.23 1.00 7 29.6 1.00 40 20 35 1.2 24 0.183 783.1 0.073 2.51 No Yes No CL - No No 2.51 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 37 94 39 CL 125 11680 8498 7175 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 19 1.30 1.00 7 30.5 1.00 52 25 35 1.2 31 0.293 796.8 0.072 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

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

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: Sacramento River
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Sacramento River: SREL-9 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: American River/South Sacramento Streams Basin Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report
R. Hochstatter
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 1678+85
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Z. Zafir
Conclusions and Comments
4/4/2024
2F-05-G7-1
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/6/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/SPSR - AR-SSB/Liq (updated)/SACRGER2F1CLiqSpdSht/Liq/Segment 9/2F_05_G7_1_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 5/8/2024
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=NfieldCE).

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 2.1 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 30.1 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.15 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 10.5 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 21.7 Energy Ratio = 80 Mw = 6.7 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, C fines N1,60,CS
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)
Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No) Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
1 4 12 SM 125 500 500 500 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 19 1.26 1.00 7 3.0 0.75 14 22 12 1.1 24 0.370 94.8 0.123 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 7 13 SM 125 875 875 875 1.5 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 20 1.28 1.00 7 4.0 0.78 15 23 12 1.1 25 0.350 163.0 0.121 2.89 No No No SM - Yes No 2.89 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 10 6 SM 115 1220 1220 1220 1.3 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 4.9 0.83 8 10 12 1.1 11 0.110 228.7 0.122 0.90 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.90 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 13 4 SP 115 1565 1565 1565 1.1 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 5 6 4 0 1.0 6 0.071 275.2 0.114 0.62 Yes No Yes SP - Yes No 0.62 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 16 5 CL 120 1925 1925 1925 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 6.7 0.91 7 7 35 1.4 10 0.089 314.5 0.106 0.84 Yes No Yes CL - No No 0.84 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 18 4 CL 120 2165 2165 2165 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 6 5 35 1.5 8 0.075 336.0 0.101 0.74 Yes No Yes CL - No No 0.74 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 20 2 CL 115 2395 2395 2395 0.9 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 2 1.10 1.00 7 7.9 0.94 3 3 35 1.8 5 0.057 357.5 0.097 0.59 Yes No Yes CL - No No 0.59 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 22 16 CL 125 2645 2645 2626 0.9 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 14 1.23 1.00 7 8.5 0.95 23 20 35 1.2 25 0.253 374.0 0.093 2.73 No Yes No CL - No No 2.73 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 9 24 18 CH 125 2895 2895 2751 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 15 1.25 1.00 7 9.1 0.96 26 22 35 1.2 27 0.289 390.5 0.092 3.00 No Yes No CH - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 10 26 19 CH 125 3145 3145 2877 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 15 1.26 1.00 7 9.8 0.96 28 22 35 1.2 27 0.297 407.0 0.092 3.00 No Yes No CH - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 11 28 19 CL 125 3395 3395 3002 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 15 1.25 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 28 22 35 1.2 27 0.277 423.5 0.092 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 12 30 15 CL 125 3645 3645 3127 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.16 1.00 7 11.0 0.98 20 14 35 1.3 18 0.147 440.0 0.091 1.61 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.61 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 13 32 15 ML 125 3895 3776 3252 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.16 1.00 7 11.6 0.98 20 14 35 1.3 18 0.143 454.0 0.091 1.58 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.58 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 14 34 35 CL 125 4145 3902 3377 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 12.2 0.98 46 33 35 1.2 39 0.696 467.9 0.090 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 15 36 23 ML 125 4395 4027 3503 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 16 1.25 1.00 7 12.8 0.99 30 21 35 1.2 26 0.256 481.9 0.089 2.86 No Yes No ML - Yes No 2.86 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 16 38 15 CL 125 4645 4152 3628 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.15 1.00 7 13.4 0.99 20 14 35 1.3 17 0.133 495.9 0.089 1.50 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.50 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 17 40 20 CL 125 4895 4277 3753 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 14 1.21 1.00 7 14.0 0.99 26 18 35 1.2 22 0.190 509.8 0.088 2.15 No Yes Yes CL - No No 2.15 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 18 42 35 CL 125 5145 4402 3878 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 14.6 0.99 46 31 35 1.2 37 0.581 523.2 0.088 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 19 44 41 CL 125 5395 4528 4003 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 15.2 0.99 54 36 35 1.2 43 0.876 536.3 0.087 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 20 46 31 CL 125 5645 4653 4129 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 15.8 0.99 41 27 35 1.2 32 0.397 549.2 0.086 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 21 49 19 CL 125 6020 4841 4316 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 12 1.18 1.00 7 16.8 1.00 25 16 35 1.2 20 0.156 568.0 0.086 1.82 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.82 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 22 52 33 CL 125 6395 5028 4504 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 17.7 1.00 44 28 35 1.2 33 0.412 586.2 0.085 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 23 55 21 SP 125 6770 5216 4692 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.20 1.00 7 18.6 1.00 28 17 5 1.0 18 0.128 603.8 0.084 1.53 No Yes Yes SP - Yes No 1.53 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 24 58 22 ML 125 7145 5404 4880 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.20 1.00 7 19.5 1.00 29 18 35 1.2 22 0.173 620.9 0.083 2.09 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 2.09 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 25 61 18 ML 125 7520 5592 5068 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.16 1.00 7 20.4 1.00 24 14 35 1.3 18 0.127 637.0 0.082 1.55 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.55 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 26 64 13 CL 125 7895 5780 5255 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 21.3 1.00 17 10 35 1.3 13 0.088 652.1 0.081 1.09 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 1.09 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).
27 67 21 CH 125 8270 5967 5443 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 12 1.18 1.00 7 22.3 1.00 28 16 35 1.2 20 0.146 667.3 0.080 1.83 No Yes Yes CH - No No 1.83 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 28 70 24 CL 125 8645 6155 5631 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 14 1.21 1.00 7 23.2 1.00 32 18 35 1.2 23 0.172 682.4 0.079 2.18 No Yes Yes CL - No No 2.18 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 29 73 18 CL 125 9020 6343 5819 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.15 1.00 7 24.1 1.00 24 13 35 1.3 17 0.114 697.6 0.078 1.46 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.46 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 30 76 19 SM 125 9395 6531 6007 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.15 1.00 7 25.0 1.00 25 14 12 1.1 15 0.098 712.7 0.077 1.27 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.27 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 31 79 34 CL 125 9770 6719 6194 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 19 1.29 1.00 7 25.9 1.00 45 25 35 1.2 30 0.293 727.9 0.076 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 32 82 37 SP 130 10160 6921 6397 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 26.8 1.00 49 27 5 1.0 27 0.238 742.0 0.075 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 33 85 28 CL 125 10535 7109 6585 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.23 1.00 7 27.7 1.00 37 20 35 1.2 24 0.189 755.7 0.075 2.53 No Yes No CL - No No 2.53 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 34 88 28 CL 125 10910 7297 6773 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 28.7 1.00 37 20 35 1.2 24 0.183 769.4 0.074 2.48 No Yes No CL - No No 2.48 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). 35 92 29 CL 125 11410 7547 7023 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.23 1.00 7 29.9 1.00 39 20 35 1.2 24 0.187 787.7 0.073 2.57 No Yes No CL - No No 2.57 Non-Liquefiable Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
4/4/2024
2F-05-G7-2
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/6/2024
24001006.001A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Z. Zafir
Sacramento River: SREL-9
SAFCA: American River/South Sacramento Streams Basin Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report
R. Hochstatter
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 1692+29
PROJECT NUMBER:

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

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: Sacramento River
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/SPSR - AR-SSB/Liq (updated)/SACRGER2F1CLiqSpdSht/Liq/Segment 9/2F_05_G7_2_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 5/8/2024
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=Nfield

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -7.5 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 26.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.15 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 10.5 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 8.0 Energy Ratio = 80 Mw = 6.7 Location = Landside Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, C fines N1,60,CS
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)
Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No) Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
3 5 4 CL 120 600 600 600 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 3.4 0.75 5 7 82 35 1.4 10 0.127 104.7 0.113 1.12 Yes No Yes CL 36 13 21 No No No 1.12 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 10 29 CL 125 1225 1225 1100 1.3 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 37 1.30 1.00 7 4.9 0.83 37 47 35 1.2 56 3.260 201.4 0.119 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 7 15 19 CL 125 1850 1850 1413 1.0 1.3 M 5 1.02 S 20 1.29 1.00 7 6.4 0.90 23 24 35 1.2 29 0.418 290.1 0.133 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 9 20 33 CL 125 2475 2475 1726 0.9 1.3 M 5 1.02 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 7.9 0.94 42 38 74 35 1.2 45 1.277 370.8 0.140 3.00 No Yes No CL 37 14 30 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Layer has more than 20% fines based on field log.
11 25 35 SC 130 3125 3125 2064 0.8 1.3 M 5 1.02 S 28 1.30 1.00 7 9.4 0.96 46 37 35 1.2 43 1.098 434.6 0.137 3.00 No Yes No SC - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 13 30 34 CH 125 3750 3500 2377 0.8 1.3 M 5 1.02 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 11.0 0.98 45 34 72 35 1.2 41 0.853 486.9 0.133 3.00 No Yes No CH 54 32 22 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 15 37 43 CH 125 4625 3939 2815 0.7 1.3 M 5 1.02 S 31 1.30 1.00 7 13.1 0.99 58 41 35 1.2 49 1.489 540.6 0.125 3.00 No Yes No CH - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

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

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: Sacramento River
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Sacramento River: SREL-9 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: American River/South Sacramento Streams Basin Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report
R. Hochstatter
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 1701+90
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Landside
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Z. Zafir
Conclusions and Comments
4/4/2024
WM0009_017B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/6/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/SPSR - AR-SSB/Liq (updated)/SACRGER2F1CLiqSpdSht/Liq/Segment 9/WM0009_017B_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 5/8/2024
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=NfieldCE).

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 0.4 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 22.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.15 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 10.0 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 12.4 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.7 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, C fines N1,60,CS
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)
Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No)Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
S-1 1 10 CL 125 125 125 125 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 16 1.18 1.00 7 2.1 0.75 10 16 35 1.3 20 0.402 24.1 0.125 3.00 No No Yes CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S-2 3 6 CL 120 365 365 365 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.10 1.00 7 2.7 0.75 6 9 35 1.3 13 0.174 71.5 0.127 1.37 No No Yes CL - No No 1.37 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S-3 5 8 CL 120 605 605 605 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 13 1.14 1.00 7 3.4 0.75 8 13 35 1.3 16 0.198 117.8 0.127 1.56 No No Yes CL - No No 1.56 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S-4 7 15 CL 125 855 855 855 1.5 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 23 1.29 1.00 7 4.0 0.78 15 23 35 1.2 28 0.451 163.0 0.124 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S-5 9 13 CL 125 1105 1105 1105 1.3 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 17 1.22 1.00 7 4.6 0.81 14 19 80 35 1.2 23 0.282 207.0 0.122 2.32 No No No CL 44 28 No No No 2.32 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S-6 11 14 CL 125 1355 1355 1355 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 17 1.22 1.00 7 5.2 0.85 16 19 35 1.2 23 0.272 246.6 0.118 2.30 No No No CL - No No 2.30 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S-7 13 7 CL 120 1595 1595 1558 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 8 9 35 1.3 12 0.112 275.2 0.115 0.98 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 0.98 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-8 15 6 CL 120 1835 1835 1673 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 6.4 0.90 7 7 35 1.4 10 0.095 303.8 0.118 0.80 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 0.80 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-9 17 9 CL 125 2085 2085 1798 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 9 1.12 1.00 7 7.0 0.92 11 11 35 1.3 14 0.123 325.3 0.118 1.05 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 1.05 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-10 19 8 CL 125 2335 2335 1923 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 7.6 0.93 10 9 58 35 1.3 12 0.106 346.8 0.117 0.90 Yes Yes Yes CL 28 12 No No No 0.90 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-11 21 14 ML 125 2585 2585 2048 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.17 1.00 7 8.2 0.94 17 15 35 1.3 19 0.177 365.8 0.116 1.53 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.53 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-12 23 11 ML 125 2835 2773 2174 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 8.8 0.95 14 12 35 1.3 15 0.128 382.3 0.114 1.12 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.12 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25.

S-13 25 19 ML 125 3085 2898 2299 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 16 1.23 1.00 7 9.4 0.96 24 20 35 1.2 24 0.255 398.8 0.113 2.26 No Yes No ML - Yes No 2.26 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-14 27 11 ML 125 3335 3023 2424 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 10.1 0.97 14 11 62 35 1.3 15 0.121 415.3 0.111 1.09 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.09 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25.

S-15 29 13 CL 125 3585 3148 2549 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.15 1.00 7 10.7 0.97 17 13 78 35 1.3 17 0.140 431.8 0.110 1.27 No Yes Yes CL 40 18 No No No 1.27 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-16 31 22 CL 125 3835 3273 2674 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 17 1.25 1.00 7 11.3 0.98 27 21 35 1.2 26 0.269 447.0 0.109 2.48 No Yes No CL - No No 2.48 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-17 33 20 CL 125 4085 3399 2800 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 11.9 0.98 25 19 35 1.2 23 0.220 461.0 0.107 2.06 No Yes No CL - No No 2.06 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-18 35 19 CL 125 4335 3524 2925 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 14 1.20 1.00 7 12.5 0.99 23 18 35 1.2 22 0.196 474.9 0.106 1.86 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.86 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-19 37 24 CL 125 4585 3649 3050 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 18 1.26 1.00 7 13.1 0.99 30 22 35 1.2 27 0.281 488.9 0.104 2.70 No Yes No CL - No No 2.70 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-20 39 19 CL 125 4835 3774 3175 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 14 1.19 1.00 7 13.7 0.99 24 17 35 1.2 21 0.184 502.9 0.103 1.79 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.79 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-21 41 16 ML 125 5085 3899 3300 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.16 1.00 7 14.3 0.99 20 14 78 35 1.3 18 0.142 516.6 0.102 1.40 No Yes Yes ML 31 8 Yes Yes No 1.40 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-22 43 15 ML 125 5335 4025 3426 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.15 1.00 7 14.9 0.99 19 13 35 1.3 17 0.128 529.8 0.101 1.27 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.27 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-23 45 9 ML 125 5585 4150 3551 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 15.5 0.99 11 8 35 1.4 11 0.080 542.8 0.099 0.81 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.81 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0.

S-24 47 14 ML 125 5835 4275 3676 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 16.2 1.00 17 12 35 1.3 15 0.113 555.5 0.098 1.15 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.15 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25.

S-25 49 11 ML 125 6085 4400 3801 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 16.8 1.00 14 9 35 1.3 12 0.089 568.0 0.097 0.92 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.92 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0.

S-26 51 8 CL 125 6335 4525 3926 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 17.4 1.00 10 7 79 35 1.4 9 0.071 580.2 0.096 0.74 Yes Yes Yes CL 35 11 No No No 0.74 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-27 56 11 CL 125 6960 4838 4239 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 18.9 1.00 14 9 35 1.3 12 0.083 609.6 0.093 0.89 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 0.89 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-28 61 13 SM 125 7585 5151 4552 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 20.4 1.00 16 10 37 35 1.3 13 0.091 637.0 0.091 1.00 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 1.00 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0. Layer is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

S-29 66 21 ML 125 8210 5464 4865 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.18 1.00 7 21.9 1.00 26 16 35 1.3 20 0.147 662.2 0.088 1.66 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.66 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Layer is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
5/20/2024
Drilled Aug. 2010
2F-10-07
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/27/2024
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From 2F-10-07
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
North Beach Lake Levee: NBLL-2
SAFCA: American River/South Sacramento Streams Basin Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report
R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
From SAC River & Well Data
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 998+33
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Project (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: South Sacramento Streams
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/SPSR - AR-SSB/Liq (updated)/SSS Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NBLL-2/SSS_GER1D1D__2F-10-07_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 7/5/2024
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=NfieldC

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -12.4 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 21.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.15 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 8.5 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 0.1 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.7 Location = Landside Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, C fines N1,60,CS
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)
Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No)Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
S-1 1 9 ML 125 125 125 69 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 14 1.16 1.00 7 2.1 0.75 9 14 35 1.3 18 0.414 21.6 0.204 2.03 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 2.03 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-2 3 7 ML 120 365 365 184 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 11 1.12 1.00 7 2.7 0.75 7 11 35 1.3 14 0.241 63.8 0.225 1.07 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.07 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25.

S-3 5 11 CL 125 615 615 309 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 18 1.20 1.00 7 3.4 0.75 11 17 35 1.2 22 0.357 104.7 0.220 1.62 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.62 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-4 7 9 CL 125 865 865 434 1.5 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 14 1.16 1.00 7 4.0 0.78 9 14 35 1.3 18 0.243 144.4 0.216 1.13 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 1.13 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-5 9 10 CL 125 1115 1115 560 1.3 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 13 1.16 1.00 7 4.6 0.81 11 14 86 35 1.3 18 0.234 182.7 0.212 1.10 Yes Yes Yes CL 43 23 No No No 1.10 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Lab data from adjacent shelby sample ST-1 in same layer.

S-6 13 19 SM 125 1615 1615 810 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 21 1.29 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 22 24 12 1.1 26 0.384 255.6 0.205 1.87 No Yes No SM - Yes No 1.87 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-7 15 30 SM 130 1875 1875 945 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 31 1.30 1.00 7 6.4 0.90 35 36 12 1.1 39 0.962 290.1 0.200 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-8 17 26 SM 130 2135 2135 1080 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 7.0 0.92 31 30 12 1.1 32 0.567 323.4 0.195 2.91 No Yes No SM - Yes No 2.91 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-9 19 15 SM 125 2385 2385 1206 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 14 1.19 1.00 7 7.6 0.93 18 17 12 1.1 18 0.191 355.3 0.192 1.00 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 1.00 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0.

S-10 21 14 CL 125 2635 2635 1331 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.17 1.00 7 8.2 0.94 17 15 35 1.3 19 0.197 384.5 0.188 1.05 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 1.05 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-11 23 26 CL 125 2885 2760 1456 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 8.8 0.95 31 26 35 1.2 32 0.503 410.5 0.183 2.74 No Yes No CL - No No 2.74 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-12 25 7 CL 120 3125 2875 1571 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 9.4 0.96 8 7 35 1.4 10 0.094 434.6 0.180 0.52 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 0.52 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-13 27 9 CL 125 3375 3001 1696 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 10.1 0.97 11 9 74 35 1.3 12 0.108 456.9 0.175 0.62 Yes Yes Yes CL 39 16 39 No No No 0.62 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-14 29 10 CL 125 3625 3126 1822 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 10.7 0.97 12 10 35 1.3 13 0.114 477.4 0.170 0.67 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 0.67 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-15 31 16 SM 125 3875 3251 1947 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.17 1.00 7 11.3 0.98 20 15 27 27 1.2 18 0.169 495.9 0.166 1.02 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 1.02 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. Fines content from Sample S-16.

S-16 33 10 SM 125 4125 3376 2072 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 11.9 0.98 12 9 27 27 1.3 12 0.102 512.7 0.161 0.63 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.63 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0.

S-17 35 16 CH 125 4375 3501 2197 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 12 1.17 1.00 7 12.5 0.99 20 15 35 1.3 19 0.168 527.6 0.156 1.08 Yes Yes Yes CH - No No 1.08 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-18 37 20 CH 125 4625 3627 2322 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.21 1.00 7 13.1 0.99 25 18 35 1.2 23 0.223 540.6 0.151 1.47 No Yes Yes CH - No No 1.47 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-19 39 11 CH 125 4875 3752 2448 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 13.7 0.99 14 10 91 35 1.3 13 0.107 551.8 0.147 0.73 Yes Yes Yes CH 55 38 No No No 0.73 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-20 41 23 CH 125 5125 3877 2573 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 17 1.24 1.00 7 14.3 0.99 29 20 35 1.2 25 0.260 563.9 0.142 1.82 No Yes No CH - No No 1.82 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-21 43 18 CH 125 5375 4002 2698 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.18 1.00 7 14.9 0.99 22 16 35 1.3 20 0.172 577.8 0.139 1.24 Yes Yes Yes CH - No No 1.24 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-22 45 19 ML 125 5625 4127 2823 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.19 1.00 7 15.5 0.99 24 16 35 1.2 20 0.179 590.9 0.136 1.32 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.32 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-23 47 36 ML 125 5875 4253 2948 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 16.2 1.00 45 31 35 1.2 37 0.601 603.3 0.133 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-24 49 25 ML 125 6125 4378 3074 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 17 1.25 1.00 7 16.8 1.00 31 21 35 1.2 26 0.260 615.6 0.130 2.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 2.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-25 51 30 ML 125 6375 4503 3199 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 17.4 1.00 37 25 35 1.2 30 0.357 627.9 0.128 2.80 No Yes No ML - Yes No 2.80 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-26 56 34 ML 125 7000 4816 3512 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 18.9 1.00 42 27 85 35 1.2 33 0.429 658.8 0.122 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Layer is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
5/20/2024
Drilled Oct. 2010
2F-10-01
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/27/2024
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From 2F-10-01
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Landside
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
North Beach Lake Levee: NBLL-4
SAFCA: American River/South Sacramento Streams Basin Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report
R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
From SAC River & Well Data
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 1044+56
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Project (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: South Sacramento Streams
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/SPSR - AR-SSB/Liq (updated)/SSS Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NBLL-4/SSS_GER1D1D_2F-10-01_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 7/5/2024
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=Nfield

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -5.4 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 14.5 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.15 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 8.5 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 0.6 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.7 Location = Landside Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, C fines N1,60,CS
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)
Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No)Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
S-1 1 20 ML 125 125 125 98 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 32 1.30 1.00 7 2.1 0.75 20 32 35 1.2 38 1.656 21.6 0.144 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S-2 3 12 CL 125 375 375 223 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 19 1.23 1.00 7 2.7 0.75 12 19 35 1.2 23 0.448 63.8 0.186 2.41 No Yes No CL - No No 2.41 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-3 5 15 CL 125 625 625 348 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 24 1.29 1.00 7 3.4 0.75 15 24 79 35 1.2 29 0.593 104.7 0.196 3.00 No Yes No CL 40 22 18 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-4 7 21 CL 125 875 875 473 1.5 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 32 1.30 1.00 7 4.0 0.78 21 32 35 1.2 39 1.143 144.4 0.198 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-5 9 16 CL 125 1125 1125 598 1.3 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 21 1.28 1.00 7 4.6 0.81 17 23 35 1.2 28 0.476 182.7 0.198 2.40 No Yes No CL - No No 2.40 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-6 11 10 CL 125 1375 1375 724 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.15 1.00 7 5.2 0.85 11 13 35 1.3 17 0.202 219.8 0.197 1.02 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 1.02 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-7 13 23 CL 125 1625 1625 849 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 26 29 35 1.2 35 0.752 255.6 0.196 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-8 17 27 CL 125 2125 1969 1099 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 7.0 0.92 32 33 52 35 1.2 39 0.935 323.4 0.191 3.00 No Yes No CL 34 20 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Lab data from adjacent shelby sample in same layer.

S-9 19 12 CL 125 2375 2094 1224 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.16 1.00 7 7.6 0.93 15 14 35 1.3 18 0.188 355.3 0.189 1.00 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 1.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-10 21 14 CL 125 2625 2219 1350 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 13 1.19 1.00 7 8.2 0.94 17 16 60 35 1.2 20 0.220 384.5 0.185 1.19 Yes Yes Yes CL 44 22 35 No No No 1.19 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-11 23 28 CL 125 2875 2345 1475 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 8.8 0.95 33 31 35 1.2 37 0.733 410.5 0.181 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-12 25 12 SM 125 3125 2470 1600 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.14 1.00 7 9.4 0.96 14 13 29 29 1.2 16 0.149 434.6 0.177 0.84 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.84 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0. Fines content from sample S-14.

S-13 27 12 SM 125 3375 2595 1725 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.14 1.00 7 10.1 0.97 15 13 29 29 1.2 16 0.143 456.9 0.172 0.83 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.83 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0. Fines content from sample S-14.

S-14 29 8 SM 115 3605 2700 1830 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 10.7 0.97 10 8 29 29 1.3 11 0.098 477.4 0.170 0.58 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.58 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0.

S-15 31 11 SP-SM 125 3855 2825 1956 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 9 1.12 1.00 7 11.3 0.98 13 11 8 1.1 12 0.106 495.9 0.165 0.64 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.64 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0.

S-16 33 19 CL 125 4105 2951 2081 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 16 1.22 1.00 7 11.9 0.98 23 19 35 1.2 24 0.247 512.7 0.160 1.54 No Yes No CL - No No 1.54 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-17 35 19 CL 125 4355 3076 2206 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 12.5 0.99 23 19 35 1.2 23 0.236 527.6 0.155 1.52 No Yes No CL - No No 1.52 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-18 37 19 CH 125 4605 3201 2331 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.21 1.00 7 13.1 0.99 23 19 35 1.2 23 0.226 540.6 0.151 1.50 No Yes Yes CH - No No 1.50 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-19 39 15 CH 125 4855 3326 2456 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 12 1.16 1.00 7 13.7 0.99 19 14 70 35 1.3 18 0.156 551.8 0.146 1.07 Yes Yes Yes CH 50 34 31 No No No 1.07 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-20 41 12 CH 125 5105 3451 2582 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 9 1.12 1.00 7 14.3 0.99 15 11 35 1.3 15 0.119 563.9 0.142 0.84 Yes Yes Yes CH - No No 0.84 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-21 43 19 CH 125 5355 3577 2707 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 14 1.20 1.00 7 14.9 0.99 24 18 35 1.2 22 0.201 577.8 0.139 1.45 No Yes Yes CH - No No 1.45 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-22 45 7 CL 125 5605 3702 2832 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 15.5 0.99 9 6 35 1.4 9 0.076 590.9 0.136 0.56 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 0.56 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-23 47 29 CL 125 5855 3827 2957 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 16.2 1.00 36 26 35 1.2 31 0.404 603.3 0.133 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-24 49 8 CL 125 6105 3952 3082 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 16.8 1.00 10 7 89 35 1.4 10 0.079 615.6 0.130 0.61 Yes Yes Yes CL 40 22 33 No No No 0.61 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-25 51 21 CL 125 6355 4077 3208 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.21 1.00 7 17.4 1.00 26 18 35 1.2 23 0.203 627.9 0.127 1.60 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.60 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S-26 56 39 CL-ML 125 6980 4390 3521 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 18.9 1.00 49 33 35 1.2 39 0.686 658.8 0.122 3.00 No Yes No CL-ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
5/20/2024
Drilled Oct. 2010
2F-10-02
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/27/2024
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From 2F-10-02
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Landside
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
North Beach Lake Levee: NBLL-4
SAFCA: American River/South Sacramento Streams Basin Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report
R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
From SAC River & Well Data
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 1044+70
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Project (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: South Sacramento Streams
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/SPSR - AR-SSB/Liq (updated)/SSS Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NBLL-4/SSS_GER1D1D_2F-10-02_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 7/5/2024
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=Nfield

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -7.5 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 18.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.15 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 6.6 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 3.9 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.7 Location = Landside Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, C fines N1,60,CS
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)
Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No)Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
Bag 1 1 12 ML 125 125 125 125 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 19 1.23 1.00 7 2.1 0.75 12 19 35 1.2 23 0.526 21.6 0.112 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

Bag 2 2.5 16 ML 125 313 313 313 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 16 25 35 1.2 30 0.699 53.4 0.111 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

Bag 3 4 19 ML 125 500 500 494 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 3.0 0.75 19 30 35 1.2 36 0.922 84.4 0.111 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

Bag 4 5.5 16 SM 125 688 688 588 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 16 25 12 1.1 27 0.452 114.7 0.127 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

Bag 5 7 6 SM 115 860 860 667 1.5 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 9 1.10 1.00 7 4.0 0.78 6 9 12 1.1 10 0.125 144.4 0.141 0.89 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.89 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0.

Bag 6 8.5 15 ML 125 1048 1048 760 1.4 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 21 1.26 1.00 7 4.4 0.81 16 22 35 1.2 27 0.412 173.3 0.148 2.78 No Yes No ML - Yes No 2.78 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

Bag 7 10 11 ML 125 1235 1235 854 1.3 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 14 1.17 1.00 7 4.9 0.83 12 15 35 1.3 19 0.226 201.4 0.153 1.47 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.47 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

Bag 8 11.5 6 SM 115 1408 1408 933 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 5.3 0.85 7 8 12 1.1 9 0.103 228.9 0.159 0.65 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.65 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0.

Bag 9 13 19 SM 125 1595 1595 1027 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 22 24 12 1.1 26 0.364 255.6 0.162 2.25 No Yes No SM - Yes No 2.25 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

Bag 10 14.5 19 SM 125 1783 1783 1121 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 20 1.28 1.00 7 6.2 0.89 22 24 12 1.1 25 0.332 281.6 0.163 2.03 No Yes No SM - Yes No 2.03 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

Bag 11 16 29 SM 130 1978 1978 1222 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 6.7 0.91 35 35 12 1.1 37 0.779 306.9 0.163 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

Bag 12 17.5 26 SM 130 2173 2173 1324 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 7.2 0.92 31 30 12 1.1 32 0.530 331.5 0.163 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

Bag 13 19 16 SM 125 2360 2298 1418 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 15 1.21 1.00 7 7.6 0.93 20 18 20 20 1.1 21 0.220 355.3 0.163 1.35 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.35 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

Bag 14 26 20 SP-SM 125 3235 2736 1856 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 17 1.25 1.00 7 9.8 0.96 25 22 6 6 1.0 22 0.234 446.0 0.156 1.50 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 1.50 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

Bag 15 31 15 SP-SM 125 3860 3049 2169 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.17 1.00 7 11.3 0.98 19 16 8 8 1.1 16 0.143 495.9 0.149 0.96 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.96 Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25.

Bag 16 36 10 ML 125 4485 3362 2482 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 12.8 0.99 13 10 35 1.3 13 0.107 534.3 0.140 0.76 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.76 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0.

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

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: South Sacramento Streams
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
North Beach Lake Levee: NBLL-4 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: American River/South Sacramento Streams Basin Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report
R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
From Sac River & Well Data
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 1074+50
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From B-2
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Landside toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
5/20/2024
Drilled Sep. 2000
B-2
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/27/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/SPSR - AR-SSB/Liq (updated)/SSS Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NBLL-4/SSS_GER1D1D_B-2_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 7/5/2024
Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0.

Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=Nfield

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -7.5 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 15.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.15 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 5.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 2.4 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.7 Location = Landside Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, C fines N1,60,CS
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)
Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No)Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
Tube 1b 5.5 20 CL 126 693 693 500 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 MCAL 32 1.30 0.80 7 3.5 0.75 17 28 35 1.2 33 0.753 114.7 0.149 3.00 No Yes No CL 18 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

Bag 2 10.5 22 ML 125 1318 1318 813 1.2 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 27 33 58 35 1.2 39 1.021 210.7 0.169 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. - 15.5 11 SP-SM 125 1943 1912 1126 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 MCAL 11 1.16 0.80 7 6.6 0.90 11 12 8 1.1 12 0.126 298.6 0.172 0.73 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.73 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0.

Bag 3 20.5 10 SP-SM 125 2568 2225 1439 0.9 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 9 1.14 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 14 13 5 5 1.0 13 0.126 377.7 0.171 0.74 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.74 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL≤1.0.

Tube 4 30.5 35 CL 125 3818 2851 2065 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 MCAL 29 1.30 0.80 7 11.1 0.98 39 33 35 1.2 39 0.803 491.5 0.155 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

Tube 5 35.5 15 ML 125 4443 3164 2378 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 MCAL 12 1.19 0.80 7 12.6 0.99 17 14 68 35 1.3 17 0.146 531.0 0.145 1.01 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.01 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25.

Bag 6 40.5 13 ML 125 5068 3477 2691 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 10 1.15 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 19 14 80 35 1.3 18 0.148 560.3 0.135 1.09 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.09 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25.

Tube 7 45.5 72 CL 125 5693 3790 3004 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 MCAL 52 1.30 0.80 7 15.7 0.99 82 60 35 1.2 70 7.223 594.0 0.129 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

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

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: South Sacramento Streams
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
North Beach Lake Levee: NBLL-4 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: American River/South Sacramento Streams Basin Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report
R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
From SAC River & Well Data
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 1088+61
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From B-12
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Landside toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
5/20/2024
Drilled Sep. 2001
B-12
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/27/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/SPSR - AR-SSB/Liq (updated)/SSS Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NBLL-4/SSS_GER1D1D_B-12_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 7/5/2024
24001006.001A/SAC24R162563 April 16, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder

APPENDIX E

ORIGINAL SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS FOR TARGETED SEGMENTS _____________________________________________________________________ (Compressed Folder of .xls Files)
ARSL_Liquefaction Spreadsheets
SREL_Liquefaction Spreadsheets
BLNL_Liquefaction Spreadsheets
24001006.001A/SAC24R162563 April 16, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder

APPENDIX F

SEISMIC DEFORMATION MODELING APPENDIX
_____________________________________________________________________ 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 1 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX F SEISMIC DEFORMATION MODELING
April 16, 2025
Seismic Deformation FLAC2D Modeling for the American River South Levee System ULDC & FEMA Levee Certification Project
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Levee Systems
Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of FLAC2D (Itasca, 2018) seismic deformation analysis, including the development of stratigraphy, strength and stiffness parameters, and time histories for the model, to support the seismic vulnerability evaluation of SAFCA flood control system levees located in the Sacramento Area of California consistent with the requirements of the California Urban Levee Design Criteria (DWR, 2012) (ULDC).

PURPOSE
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) is working with a team of consultants to obtain ULDC and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) certifications for the Sacramento area levees under their jurisdiction. This appendix provides and analyzes modeled results for levee deformation after a 200-yr design earthquake event, as required by the ULDC. The purpose of this analysis is to analyze a 200-yr return period design earthquake event, evaluate the potential damage to the riverbank and levee, and determine whether sufficient riverbank will remain for intermediate and permanent levee repair/reconstruction. Development of the model is consistent with the methodology presented in the ULE Guidance Document (URS, 2015a).

GOVERNING STANDARDS
Methodology for conducting seismic evaluation of levees is governed by design criteria developed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Relevant publications that will be the primary sources for Kleinfelder’s analysis include:
• Urban Levee Design Criteria (DWR, 2012) “Section 7.7 – Seismic Vulnerability” • Urban Levee Evaluations Project Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis (URS, 2015a), DWR and URS

REPRESENTATIVE CROSS SECTION
The critical cross section for modeling was selected based on associated borings containing sandy layers with low blow counts, which have high susceptibility to liquefaction and were classified as High Seismic Vulnerability in previous studies. The section of Sacramento River East Levee (SREL) between Stations 1450+00 and 1500+00 was identified as critical because the exploration profile displayed nearly 60 continuous feet of sand and silt layers with low field blow counts. 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 2 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
The project site map, levee alignment, and stationing are shown on Figure 1. As part of the SAFCA Sacramento River East Levee Improvement Project (SRELIP), GEI Consultants created a cross section at Station 1471+30 (GEI/HDR, 2016), with the approximate location show on Figure 1 and the cross-section is displayed in Figure 2 of this appendix.

The GEI cross-section in Figure 2 includes six primary soil units identified by GEI based on the boring explorations, including the levee embankment, foundational soils and soil-bentonite (SB) cut-off wall.

The levee embankment appears to generally consist of silty sand, with the levee foundation soils consisting of sandy silt, silty sand, and poorly graded sand with silt over clay soils. Refer to Figure 2 of the appendix for more details on the soil units. The GEI cross section does not include the deep soilbentonite (SB) slurry seepage cutoff wall constructed in 2022 for the SREL Contract 3 (C3) project (Kleinfelder/Stantec Joint Venture, 2024). However, GEI provided a remediated conditions stability model using this cross section. The proposed seepage cutoff wall shown in Figure 3 matches the tip elevation and design strength properties of the constructed C3 wall.

Based on the above information, the critical cross section was selected at Station 1471+30 and the FLAC model was developed using the SRELIP GEI cross section’s geometry and stratigraphy. The GEI cross section was extended on the “waterside” as surface topography suggests that the river bottom continues to gently slope to a general bottom at Elevation -20 ft before flattening out. The soil stratigraphy was likewise extended assuming the soil boundaries between the soil strata are horizontal.

The evaluated ground water elevation was taken as the average winter WSE from the 2015 URS SPTbased liquefaction analysis for boring 2F-05-G3-2 at Station 1472+08 (URS, 2015b), at approximate Elevation +11.6 ft. This value was at a greater elevation than the current ground water elevation reviewed for this region, so it was considered the critical and conservative WSE and at the top of the upper liquefiable layer.

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Liquefiable layers at Station 1471+30 were evaluated using the crown boring, 2F-05-G3-2. This boring was selected to develop the liquefiable layer properties because of its low field blow counts. URS had performed a SPT-based liquefaction analysis on the boring. Kleinfelder updated this analysis using Magnitude 6.7 from Kleinfelder’s 2024 Ground Motion Parameter Selection Memorandum. The results are included as Figure 4.

Standard penetration test blow counts were corrected for overburden pressure, energy ratio, borehole diameter, sampler, rod length, and fines content to estimate the residual undrained strength (Sur) of the liquefiable layers. The Guidance Document defines these corrected blow counts as (N1)60-cs-Sur and requires the Seed-Harder (1990) relationship for residual strength (Figure 5) to estimate postliquefaction layer strengths using the median (N1)60-cs-Sur values. Some of the liquefaction analyses from the ULE Sacramento River GER (URS, 2015b) had Sur values calculated for specific (N1)60-cs-Sur values (i.e.

Median (N1)60-cs-Sur = 9, Sur = 200 psf). These values were used where applicable for consistency.

The ULE Guidance Document (URS, 2015a) specifies that the full depth of a soil layer susceptible to liquefaction must be evaluated, even if it extends over 50 feet below the landside levee toe. In the 2F05-G3-2 analysis, the SP-SM layer is Likely Liquefiable to a depth of 67 feet (Elevation -32 feet). For this 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 3 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
analysis, the entire SP-SM layer to Elevation -40 feet was considered Likely Liquefiable as a conservative estimate.

The median (N1)60-cs-Sur values were calculated for the Likely Liquefiable portions of layers 2, 3, and 4 described in Section 3B. (N1)60-cs-Sur is computed by adding (N1)60 and ∆Ncorr, which is found using Table 6- 3 in Section 6.8.2.1 of the Guidance Document (URS, 2015a). The average fines contents for each layer between the borings, which were used in the liquefaction analysis, were used to determine ∆Ncorr. Table 6-4, which determines ∆Ncorr using USCS classifications, produces the same results for ∆Ncorr. The median values and their corresponding residual undrained strengths based on Figure 5 are summarized in Table

1. Table 1 – Liquefiable Layers Stratigraphy and Properties Material Type
Upper
Bound
Elevation
(ft)
Lower
Bound
Elevation
(ft)
Median
(N1)60
Average
Fines
Content for
Layer (%)
∆Ncorr (N1)60-cs-Sur
Residual
Undrained
Strength (psf)
2 – Sandy ML
Foundation 11.6 -1 5 50% 4 9 200
3 – SM
Foundation -1 -8 8 15% 1 9 200
4 – SP-SM -8 -40 10 8% 1 11 290

SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODEL AND PARAMETERS
The soils were modeled using the Mohr-Coulomb (MC) model during geostatic conditions for the staged construction sequence simulation of the embankment and constructed C3 wall. For dynamic analysis, we selected soil models based on the liquefaction potential, plasticity index, and fines content. Soils that are estimated to be potentially liquefiable using the Cetin et. al. (2004) empirical methods (URS, 2015a) as required by DWR were modeled using PM4Sand (Boulanger and Ziotopoulou, 2018) or PM4Silt (Boulanger and Ziotopoulou, 2024) based on the fines content and plasticity. Soil above the evaluated groundwater elevation and non-liquefiable soils were modeled using MC with the hysteretic damping in FLAC.

Strength, stiffness, and other relevant properties were developed using the existing borings and GEI cross section. The following is a summary of the various parameters developed to use in the analysis shown in Table 2.

Strength Parameters
Shear strength parameters (effective cohesion and friction angle values for drained and undrained conditions) and unit weights used by GEI were adopted for this analysis, which had previously been approved for the SRELIP project. Additional details and explanation of the derived parameters can be found in the GEI report (GEI/HDR, 2016).
24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 4 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
(N1)60 Values
Kleinfelder estimated (N1)60 values for each stratigraphic layer using the field blow counts from cross section boring 2F-05-G3-2; this boring was considered the basis of the critical scenario due to its low blow counts and was, as shown on Figure 2, the only boring taken within the levee prism. (N1)60 values were calculated for each sample where a blow count was recorded. The median (N1)60 value was calculated for each stratigraphic layer. The median (N1)60 value was used to correlate to other relevant soil properties, such as relative density, shear-wave velocity (and therefore stiffness).

Shear-Wave Velocity (VS)
The shear-wave velocity was correlated to the median blow counts for the soil strata. Where the proposed surface topography varies significantly in the evaluated cross-section, the use of the overburden corrected shear-wave velocity was utilized for Layers 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Andrus and Stokoe (2000) correlation modified by Boulanger and Ziotopoulou (2018) was utilized to estimate the VS1 value shown in Table 2 and subsequently used in conjunction with the geostatic effective stresses to compute the shear-wave velocity for the zones within the FLAC model. In an effort to limit near-surface effects (low overburden stresses), a minimum shear-wave velocity of 440 ft/s was imposed.

The shear-wave velocity for the Layer 6 - Cutoff wall was selected to be 550 ft/s based on the assigned shear strength and our experience. The shear-wave velocity for Layer 7 – CL was correlated to the blow counts in the soil layer from the 2010 University of California Los Angeles study (Brandenberg, Bellana and Shantz, 2010). The resulting Vs values were varied from 950 ft/s at the top of the layer to 1100 ft/s at elevation -83 ft (approximately 100 ft depth below the landside surface). The soil shear-wave velocity of the soil layers was kept consistent across the profile to form a non-liquefiable “foundation” layer of the model, which appears to be generally consistent with geologic conditions of the area.

Figure 6 shows a profile of the VS values combined from the estimated the VS1 and VS for the various soil layers at the center line of the levee. The VS1 and VS values were implemented in FLAC to create the VS cross-section shown in Figure 7. Table 2 shows the selected values and average values at the levee center line for each soil layer.

Soil Moduli (G & K)
The soil small-strain shear modulus was calculated based on the VS values using the relationship:

𝐺 = 𝜌𝑉𝑆
where, ρ is the saturated soil density; VS is the shear-wave velocity.

The small-strain bulk modulus is then computed using the relationship:

𝐾 =
2𝐺(1 + 𝜐)
3(1 − 2𝜐)
where, υ is Poisson’s ratio.

Poisson’s ratio was estimated using the relationship:
𝜐 =
𝑘𝑜
1 + 𝑘𝑜
where, ko is the at-rest earth pressure coefficient.
24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 5 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
The at-rest earth-pressure coefficient was estimated using the relationship:
𝑘𝑜 = 1 − sin(𝜙)𝑂𝐶𝑅1−sin (𝜙)
where, φ is the drained friction angle (shown in Table 2); OCR is the over-consolidation ratio.

Over-Consolidation Ratio (OCR)
GEI estimated the maximum past pressure for Soil Layers 2 and 5 as 43000 psf and 15000 psf respectively. Using a simplified 1-D assumption of the stress field directly below the levee center, the OCR was estimated at the center of the soil layer. Other soil layers were assumed to have OCR values of

1. The utilized values are shown in Table 2.

Hydraulic Conductivity (Kh/Kv)
GEI presented and utilized hydraulic conductivities for use in the seepage analyses and design of the cutoff wall. We have utilized the same hydraulic conductivities in the FLAC analysis to allow for dissipation of the excess pore water pressures generated during shaking. The values utilized are presented in the same units used by GEI, but were converted to the same units of the problem and to be compliant with the expected values by FLAC.
24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 6 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 2 – Soil Strength, Stiffness, and Hydraulic Conductivity Properties Material
Bottom
Elevation
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Median
(N1)60
Drained
Cohesion,
c’ (psf)
Drained
Friction
Angle,
φ’ (dgs)
Undrained
Cohesion,
c (psf)
Undrained
Friction
Angle,
φ (dgs)
Overburden
Corrected
Shear Wave
Velocity
VS1 (ft/s)
Average Shear
Wave Velocity
VS (ft/s) @
Levee Center
Line
OCR
Plasticity
Index
Relative
Density, DR
(%)
Porosity
n (dec)
Horizontal
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Kh (cm/s)
Vertical
Hydraulic
Conductivity
KV (cm/s)
1 – SM
Embankment
Fill

17.5 120 6 0 30 -- -- 476 446 1 -- -- 0.29 2E-03 5E-04
2 – Sandy ML
Foundation1
-1 115 5 25 36 480 11.4 461 478 / 507

1.7 /

1.4 5 -- 0.32 / 0.51 6E-05 1.5E-05
3 – SM
Foundation
-8 120 8 0 31 -- -- 502 569 1 -- 41.7 0.47 6E-04 1.5E-04 4 – SP-SM -40 125 10 0 33 -- -- 524 642 1 -- 46.6 0.41 8E-03 4E-03 5 – CL -83 120 11 100 33 2455 4.5 -- 1019 2.1 14 -- 0.47 4E-06 1E-06 6 – Cutoff
Wall1
-- 120 -- 360 4 500 0 -- 550 1 20 -- 0.29 / 0.47 1E-06 1E-06

1. Where the soil strata extended below the evaluated groundwater elevation, the soil material was split such that dry densities were defined below the groundwater elevation. Moisture contents and porosity, and relative densities were selected to be compliant with the fully saturated assumption for material below the groundwater elevation. 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 7 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Mohr-Coulomb + Hysteretic Parameters
The Mohr-Coulomb model with hysteretic damping was used in FLAC to model the behavior of soil units not expected to liquefy during shaking. The Darendeli (2001) modulus reduction factor (MRF) curves were used as a target for the Sig3 and Sig4 models in FLAC. Adjustments were made so that the FLAC models are better fit to the shear strength at large strains, per the recommendations of Yee et. al. (2013). The selected hysteretic damping parameters are shown in Table 3 and the resulting backbone curves and implied shear stress curves are shown in Figures 8 to 15. In addition to the hysteretic damping, a small amount of Rayliegh damping was included for each soil layer to roughly represent the average minimum damping ratio observed by Darendeli (2001) across the period range of interest for the project. These values are also included in Table 3.

PM4Sand/PM4Silt Parameters
The PM4Sand model (Boulanger and Ziotopoulou, 2018) is capable of incorporating the effects of excess pore pressure generation under various dynamic loading conditions. The primary inputs for the model include the relative density (DR), shear modulus coefficient (GO), and contraction rate parameter (hPO), which controls the contraction rate and subsequent cyclic resistance ratio (CRR). The PM4Sand model was selected to represent Soil Layers 3 and 4.

Soil Layer 2 is low plasticity and expected to exhibit silt-like behavior. PM4Silt (Boulanger and Ziotopoulou, 2023) was selected to model the dynamic behavior of this soil unit. The PM4Silt model builds on the framework of the PM4Sand model, and we refer the reader to the PMSilt manual (Boulanger and Ziotopoulou, 2023) for more details. The primary inputs for the PM4Silt model include the undrained shear strength (sU) shear modulus coefficient (GO), and contraction rate parameter (hPO).

Relative Density (DR)
The relative density was correlated to the median blow counts using the relationship presented by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) and shown in Eq. 94 of Boulanger and Ziotopoulou (2018). The utilized value is shown in Table 2.

Undrained Shear Strength (sU)
The undrained shear strength was derived from the SHANSEP relationship used by GEI (GEI/HDR, 2015) and described previously. The selected c and φ values were converted with the effective stress to an equivalent sU for use in the constitutive models. The residual strengths estimated in Table 1 were incorporated into the PM4Silt model and implemented when excess porewater pressure ratio (RU) in the PM4Silt zones exceeded 0.7 (70%).

Shear Modulus Coefficient (GO)
The shear modulus coefficient is derived from the shear modulus and the relationship shown in Eq. 96 of the PM4Sand manual (Boulanger and Ziotopoulou, 2018).
24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 8 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Contraction Rate Parameter (hPO)
The contraction rate parameter was calibrated following the general procedures provided in the PM4Sand/PM4Silt manuals and fit to the SPT-based liquefaction triggering criteria per Cetin et. al. (2004). Where no site-specific field/laboratory data is available to refine the calibration of many of the secondary parameters, the default values were used or minor modifications based on our engineering judgement so that a reasonable dynamic behavior was obtained in single element tests. The individual soil units were subdivided into sub-units to better evaluate the effects from changes in GO, effective confining stress, and SU. Key parameters were extracted from a zone at the approximate center of these sub-units to represent the adjacent zones during the calibration process. The parameters of these selected representative zones and used in the calibration process are shown in Table 4. Figure 16 shows the subunits within the FLAC model.

Figure 17 shows the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) vs number of cycles to 98% Excess Porewater Pressure Ratio (RU), 1% Strain, and 3% strain for Soil Layer 2. Plotted on each figure is the resulting calibrated curve for each of the representative zones labeled by the sub-unit they represent. Additionally, the CSR vs number of cycle curves are also shown when static shear-bias (α) is included for the representative zone with the calibrated hPO. Figure 18 shows the same plots for Soil Layer 3 and Figures 19 to 20 shows this for Soil layer 4.
24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 9 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 3 – Hysteretic and Rayleigh Damping Parameters
Material
FLAC
Model
(Fit
Curve)
c0 c1 c2 c3
Dmin
(Darendeli
Curves)
%
Dmin
(Rayleigh)
%
fmin
(Rayleigh,
Hz)
2 1 – SM
Embankment
Fill
Sig3 1 -0.55 -1.55 -- 1.1 0.69 1.41
2 – Sandy ML
Foundation1
Sig4

9.96E-01 -0.52 -1.38 3.57E-03 1 0.63 1.41

9.96E-01 -0.5 -1.34 3.60E-03 0.91 0.58 1.41
3 – SM
Foundation
Sig4 9.95E-01 -0.55 -1.36 5.32E-03 0.86 0.54 1.41
4 – SP-SM Sig4 9.99E-01 -0.6 -1.31 6.37E-04 0.845 0.53 1.41 5 – CL Sig4 1.00E+00 -0.46 -1.15 6.68E-05 0.78 0.49 1.41 6 – Cutoff
Wall1
Sig3
1 -0.43 -1.34 -- 1.21 0.76 1.41
1 -0.4 -1.2 -- 0.96 0.6 1.41

1. Soil layer was split for above and below the evaluated ground water surface.

2. Minimum frequency for Rayleigh damping was selected at the estimated natural frequency of the system, which approximately coincides with the center of the period range governed by the ground motions high frequency filter (10 Hz) and lowest usable frequency of the selected ground motions (0.2 Hz). 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 10 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 4 – PM4Sand/Silt Parameters
Material
Constitutive
Model
SubUnit #
GO
1 SU
(psf) 1
σv'
(psf)1
hPO φcv’ (dgs) υ eO emin emax
2 – Sandy
ML
(Below
Groundw
ater)
PM4Silt
1 509 758 1318 0.05
36 0.33 0.97 -- --
2 479 1093 3041 0.05
3 456 892 2044 0.1
4 565 696 1071 0.15
3 – SM PM4Sand
1 685 - 610 0.125
31 0.33 -- 0.3 0.9
2 555 - 2132 0.125
3 579 - 3439 0.15
4 561 - 2630 0.15
5 545 - 1672 0.125
4 – SPSM
PM4Sand
1 669 - 889 0.1
33 0.31 -- 0.5 0.8
2 620 - 1136 0.075
3 622 - 1139 0.075
4 625 - 1398 0.075
5 606 - 1045 0.1
6 622 - 2106 0.1
7 675 - 3840 0.125
8 669 - 4702 0.125
9 635 - 2408 0.125
10 636 - 3431 0.125

1. Value shown here is selected from the representative zone for the sub-unit, individual zones were assigned their specific value. 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 11 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

SEISMIC SETTING AND TIME HISTORIES
The modeled area is located closest to the Pocket control point at latitude 38.4989, longitude -121.5578 in Kleinfelder’s Ground Motion Parameter Selection Memorandum (Kleinfelder, 2024). The Ground Motion Hazard Analysis deaggregation produced mean and modal magnitudes and rupture distances.

Regional faults include the following:
• Midland (30km away): Normal, Reverse Right Lateral
• Trout Creek (45km away): Thrust
• Hunting Creek – Berryessa (65km away): Reverse Right Lateral • Dunnigan Hills (35km away): Reverse Thrust
These were used to determine the search parameters for the selection of seed time histories, shown in Table 5. The lower-bound values for distance and magnitude are lower than the deaggregation results because of the proximity of faults and the history of regional earthquakes below magnitude 6.5.

Table 5 – Time History Selection Parameters
Return
Period
Vs,30
(m/s)
Faulting
Mechanism
Distance Rrup
(km)
Magnitude
(Mw)
Lowest Usable
Frequency
Scale
Factor
200-yr
300 -
350
Reverse +
Strike Slip 30 - 90 6.0 – 7.5 0.1 0.25 - 4
Using the parameters in Table 5, five representative time histories were acquired from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center Ground Motion NGA-West2 Database (https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/, PEER, 2014). The selected time histories are presented in Table 6 and were then spectrally matched to the target “outcrop” response spectrum for the conditions at the base of the model (VS,30 = 1100 ft/s or 335 m/s). Plots of the original and spectrally matched time histories are shown on Figures 21 to 25. The time histories were then passed through a Butterworth low pass filter at 10 Hz for use in the FLAC model. The filtered response spectra and suite average are shown on Figure

26. 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 12 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 6 – Selected Time Histories from PEER Database (NGA West 2) Record No.

Ground Motion (GM)
Name for Analysis
Results
Earthquake Name (Year) / Station
Name
Component
(H1/H2)
Azimuth
(degrees)
Mw Rrup (km) Vs,30 (m/s)
Faulting
Mechanis
m
D5-95 (s) td (s)
Lowest
Usable
Frequency
(Hz)
188 GM1 Imperial Valley-06 (1979) / Plaster City H2 135 6.5 30.3 316.6 Strike Slip 10.8 18.82 0.15 836 GM2 Landers (1992) / Baker Fire Station H2 140 7.3 87.9 324.6 Strike Slip 25.7 50.0 0.1 1094 GM3
Northridge-01 (1994) / West Covina – S
Orange Ave
H2 315 6.7 51.7 334.7 Reverse 19.7 36.48 0.075
27441 GM4 Chi-Chi, Taiwan (1999) / CHY088 H2 90 6.2 48.4 318.5 Strike Slip 20.8 79.0 0.06 6933 GM5 Darfield, New Zealand (2010) / MAYC H1 14 7.0 35.2 342.7 Strike Slip 25.5 54.25 0.175

1. GM4 was truncated to begin at ~16 seconds as no acceleration data was present to speed analysis time. 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 13 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
FLAC2D MODELING
The GEI cross section geometry was implemented in FLAC with the modifications discussed above to extend the waterside surface to the approximate riverbed elevation and on the landside so that boundary conditions were sufficiently distant from the region of interest (i.e. the levee) to not significantly affect the model results. The model mesh was discretized such that frequencies less than 10 Hz can pass through the model.

Model Staging
We modeled the staged construction of the levee to build up more accurate stress fields in the model prior to initiating dynamic loading conditions. Figures 27 and 28 illustrate the general model staging.

Standard fixed boundary conditions were used during static loading. The considered groundwater elevation (EL. 11.6 ft) was initialized across the model and the static condition obtained once the model reached equilibrium. Figures 29 and 30 present the FLAC 2D vertical total stress, pore pressure, vertical effective stress, and horizontal effective stress contours of the model after achieving static equilibrium.

These figures present reasonable stress and pore water pressure field and are the basis of the FLAC 2D dynamic time history analyses.

Dynamic Loading and Boundary Conditions
Appropriate dynamic boundary conditions are essential to simulate shear-wave propagation and dynamic response under earthquake loading conditions. Compliant base and “free-field” boundary conditions were implemented in the FLAC model. We refer the reader to the FLAC manual (Itasca, 2016) for more details on the use of dynamic boundary conditions.

As discussed previously, five-spectrally matched single-component horizontal time histories were selected for input in the FLAC model. The earthquake loading was applied as velocity time histories at the compliant base. These were subsequently converted to shear-stress time histories.

Post-Shake Dissipation Conditions
After the completion of dynamic loading with the input time histories, a post-shaking stage was implemented to allow the generated excess pore water pressures to dissipate. The dynamic boundary conditions were removed and converted back to those used prior to dynamic shaking. Rayliegh damping was likewise removed. The PostShake flag available in the PM4 models was initiated to allow for volumetric consolidation settlements as well as utilizing the Fsu variable in the PM4Silt model to set residual strengths for zones with RU > 0.7. All hydraulic conductivities were scaled up to all for a reasonable real solution time. The post-shake analysis was then continued until the excess porewater pressures were dissipated to a point where displacements at the crest of the levee were no longer producing significant additional displacement.

Residual Strength Conditions
In addition to the post-shake dissipation conditions, we explored the potential effects of residual strength conditions following the recommendation from Boulanger et. al., (2015). All conditions replaced the PM4Sand/Silt zones with the Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model using the residual strengths outlined in Table 1 (e.g. Cohesion = 200 psf, Friction Angle = 0 degrees). We estimated an 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 14 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
equivalent shear-wave velocity for the residual strength condition using the correlation from undrained shear strength to shear-wave velocity presented by Dickenson (1994). The shear and bulk moduli were then computed using the relationships outlined previously using an assumed Poisson’s ratio, giving the derived parameters shown in Table 7. As most of the dynamic analyses showed similar patterns of shear strain and excess pore pressure developed. The residual strength conditions were evaluated for GM5 as this motion appears to have caused higher shear-strains and RU values compared to the other GMs and would allow for the general evaluation of the sensitivity of the displacement results to permanent residual strength conditions. Additionally, to evaluate the potential effects of the residual strengths, we replaced the liquefied zones at different points in the model staging. This was done by replacing the zones with RU > 0.7:
• At the end of shaking, then continuing the dissipation phase. • At the end of significant levee crest movement (~45 seconds after shaking) when PM4Models with the PostShake flag for volumetric consolidation was used, then continuing the dissipation phase.
• Shown in the dynamic analyses with residual parameters after the undrained static stage and completing a residual strength static equilibrium stage (i.e. no dynamic shaking).

Table 7 – Residual Strengths and Stiffness Parameters for Soil Layer Stratigraphy Material Type
Residual
Undrained
Strength
(psf)
Residual
ShearWave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson’s
Ration
(Liquefied)1
Shear
Modulus
(Liquefied,
ksf)
Bulk
Modulus
(Liquefied,
ksf)
2 – Sandy ML
Foundation 200 217 0.49 169 8374
3 – SM
Foundation 200 217 0.49 176 8738
4 – SP-SM 290 259 0.49 261 12955

1. A brief sensitivity where an assumed Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 was used. Only minor differences were observed in the displacement results at the levee crest.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Model Base and Surface Response Spectra
Horizontal acceleration time histories were tracked at the base of the FLAC 2D model, crest of the levee, and far-field “landside” surface. These acceleration time histories were used to verify that the applied input motions produced the expected response from the model. Figures 31 to 33 present the response spectra at the model base and at the surface (tracked points are shown in Figure 16). Shown on Figures 31 to 33 for comparison purposes are the results of a probabilistic hazard analysis using the VS,30 of 640 ft/s (195 m/s) taken from the upper 100 ft of the FLAC model and using the Pocket control point used to develop the target spectrum. We also explored the effect of reverse polarity of earthquake motion and the respective response spectra are shown in Figure 34 to 36 for the tracked locations. 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 15 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
The comparison of response spectra generally shows the time histories used in our numerical modeling have energy and seismic forces compatible with the expected earthquake hazard and that the model conditions generally produce the expected response at the surface of the model.

Seismic Strains & Excess Porewater Pressures Ratios
Figures 37 to 46 present the FLAC 2D dynamic time history results after shaking was complete for the five selected time histories. For each time history, we provided the following set of output results:
• Maximum Shear Strain Contour at End of Shaking + Reverse Polarity (Figures 37 to 41) • Maximum RU Contour at End of Shaking + Reverse Polarity (Figures 42 to 46) The results of the FLAC2D modeling show generation of excess porewater pressures and liquefaction initiation (both RU >0.9 (90%) and shear strains > 3%) in the levee foundation soils, primarily at the waterside toe. Liquefaction initiated below the landside portion of the model generally within Soil Layer 3 (SM Foundation), but RU was also observed to exceed 0.7 (70%) in Soil Layer 2 (Sandy ML Foundation) which initiated residual strength conditions. While not all of the PM4 soil zones experienced full liquefaction, excess pore pressures were generated that indicate partial liquefaction, generally 0.6 (60%) < RU < 0.9 (90%) in the remaining soil zones. Evaluation of the developed shear strains are in general agreement with the liquefaction initiation shown by the excess pore pressures.

Seismic Displacements for Post-Shake Dissipation Stage
Figures 47 to 61 present the FLAC 2D dynamic time history results after dissipation for the five selected time histories. For each suite of ground motion, we provided the following set of output results:
• Horizontal Displacement Contour at End of Dissipation + Reverse Polarity (Figures 47 to 51) • Vertical Displacement Contour at End of Dissipation + Reverse Polarity (Figures 52 to 56) • Horizontal and Vertical Displacement Time Histories at the Levee Centerline (Figures 57 to 61) The development of the failure surfaces shown in the displacement figures are generally in good agreement with our expectations from the soil profile, liquefaction analyses, and cross-section geometry. The peak displacements for each time history at the levee centerline are shown in Table 8.

The results of Figures 47 to 56 indicate that estimated displacements increase towards the waterside of the levee.

Seismic Displacements Using Residual Strengths
Figure 62 shows the predicted displacements time history for GM5 with different implementations of the residual strength zones. The results indicate that when the residual strength zones are implemented, the resulting displacements from the residual strength zones are on the order of ~0.05 ft (0.6 inches). This is further corroborated by the displacement history results vs the number of steps to equilibrium shown on Figure 62 for the third evaluation scenario where the residual strengths are implemented directly after the undrained static stage. While this scenario does not include the dynamic displacements shown during shaking (Figures 57 to 61), it does help to isolate the potential movements due to permanent residual strength conditions. Based on these results, it appears that the estimated 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 16 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
displacements in Table 8 are likely within a reasonable order of magnitude estimates of displacement including potential residual strength conditions.

Geotechnical Modeling Uncertainty Considerations
The purpose of the FLAC analysis was to evaluate whether the potential displacements and post-event conditions for the 200-yr return period earthquake would potentially leave areas where repair or temporary levees could be constructed. Numerical modeling and evaluation of geotechnical engineering, particularly in seismic evaluations, are subject to significant uncertainties, including uncertainties in modeling parameters, subsurface conditions, and earthquake loads. As discussed above, although settlement and lateral movement will occur, it is likely sufficient ground will remain for levee repair and reconstruction.

In addition, the results of the FLAC analysis indicate that after a 200-yr design return period event the levee could potentially be downgraded to a medium vulnerability. However, the FLAC analyses indicate that the evaluated cross sections are marginally stable and along with modeling uncertainties, particularly the uncertainty in earthquake ground motions and the natural variation of subsurface soils, present the potential for large increases in the estimated displacements, and it may be possible that greater displacements than the estimated values presented above could occur. As such, we recommend that the levee still be considered high vulnerability and that large-scale repairs may be necessary. While large-scale repairs are likely, it is anticipated that based on the results of the FLAC analysis, it is likely the levee easement and riverbank will be available for repair work and temporary/permanent levee construction with the appropriate design and construction measures that are discussed in the SAFCA ULDC & FEMA Levee Certification Project Post Earthquake Repair Plan. 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 17 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 8 – Resultant Levee Crest Displacements at Centerline1 Ground
Motion
Displacement At End of Shaking (in) Displacement During Dissipation (in) Total Displacement (in) Horizontal2 Vertical3 Combined
Magnitude4 Horizontal2 Vertical3 Combined Magnitude4 Horizontal2 Vertical 3 Combined
Magnitude
4 GM1 -6 -12 13 -5 -7 8 -11 -18 21
GM2 -10 -22 25 -6 -7 9 -16 -29 33
GM3 -7 -17 19 -5 -5 7 -12 -23 26
GM4 -10 -17 20 -5 -6 8 -15 -23 27
GM5 -9 -22 24 -4 -4 5 -13 -26 29
GM1 – RP5-6 -12 13 -5 -6 8 -11 -18 21
GM2 – RP5-8 -19 20 -5 -6 8 -13 -25 28
GM3 – RP5-9 -18 20 -5 -5 7 -14 -23 27
GM4 – RP5-6 -15 16 -5 -6 8 -11 -21 24
GM5 – RP5-11 -21 24 -6 -6 8 -16 -28 32

1. Results shown are from the time history results tracked at the levee center line point shown in Figure 16.

2. (+) X direction is towards the landside, (-) X direction is towards the waterside.

3. (+) Y direction is up, (-) Y direction is down.

4. Combined displacement is the resulting magnitude of the X and Y displacements.

5. RP = Reverse Polarity
24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 18 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

CLOSING
This document is intended to be used as an appendix to the primary American River South Levee System and Natomas Basin Seismic Performance Summary Reports and is subject to the same limitations as in that report. If you have questions regarding this memorandum or if we may be of further assistance, please contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,
KLEINFELDER, INC.

Troy Covill, PE*
*Licensed in UT Zia Zafir, PE, GE
Project Engineer Senior Technical Manager

ATTACHMENTS
Analysis Figures
24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 19 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
References
Andrus, R.D., and Stokoe, K.H. (2000). “Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 126(11), 1015-025.

Brandenberg, S. J., Bellana, N., and Shantz, T. (2010). “Shear Wave Velocity as a Statistical Function of Standard Penetration Test Resistance and Vertical Effective Stress at Caltrans Bridge Sites,” University of California Los Angeles for California Department of Transportation, dated June 2010.

Boulanger, R. W., Montgomery, J., and Ziotopoulou, K. (2015). “Nonlinear Deformation Analyses of Liquefaction Effects on Embankment Dams.” Perspectives on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering 37, 247-283.

Boulanger, R. W., and Ziotopoulou, K. (2018). “PM4Sand (Version 3.1): A Sand Plasticity Model for Earthquake Engineering Applications,” Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California at Davis, dated October 2017 (Revised July 2018).

Boulanger, R. W., and Ziotopoulou, K. (2023). “PM4Silt (Version 2.1): A Silt Plasticity Model for Earthquake Engineering Applications,” Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California at Davis, dated February 2023 (Revised June 2023).

California Department of Water Resources (2012). Urban Levee Design Criteria.

Cetin et al. (2004). “Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 130, Issue 12, ASCE, dated December 2004.

Darendeli, M. B. (2001). Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas.

Dickenson, S.E., 1994, Dynamic Response of Soft and Deep Cohesive Soils during the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989, PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

GEI/HDR (2016). “Embankment and Foundation Stability Memorandum, Sacramento River East Levee Improvement Project, Sacramento County, California,” dated August 2016. 24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F Page 20 of 20 April 16, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, (2008). “Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,” Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 261 pp.

Itasca (2018). “FLAC - Fast Langrangian Analysis of Continua” v. 8.0.452 Kleinfelder (2024). “Seismic Evaluation Ground Motion Parameter Selection Memorandum, ULDC & FEMA Levee Certification Project, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Levee Systems, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California,” dated February 9, 2024.

Kleinfelder/Stantec Joint Venture (2024). “Construction Completion Report, Sacramento River East Levee, Contract 3 Construction, American River Common Features 2016, Sacramento River East Levee, Sacramento County, California,” dated November 27, 2024.

PEER, 2014, PEER NGA-West2 Database (PEER Report 2013/03), by: Timothy D. Ancheta, Robert B.

Darragh, Jonathan P. Stewart, Emel Seyhan, Walter J. Silva, Brian S.J. Chiou, Katie E. Wooddell, Robert W. Graves, Albert R. Kottke, David M. Boore, Tadahiro Kishida, and Jennifer L. Donahue.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2016). ER 1110-2-1806 Earthquake Design and Evaluation for Civil Works Projects.

URS (2015a). “Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analyses, Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program, Contract 4600008101,” prepared for Department of Water Resources, dated April 29, 2015
URS (2015b). “ULE Geotechnical Evaluation Report Volume 2, Remedial Alternatives, Sacramento River Study Area, Urban Levee Evaluations Project, Contract 4600008101,” dated January 2015 (Issue date: 02-04-2015)
Yee E., Stewart, J.P., Tokimatsu K. (2013). “Elastic and Larger Strain Nonlinear Seismic Site Response from Analysis of Vertical Array Recordings. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 139(10): 1789- 1801.
24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F April 16, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURES
___________________________________________________________________________________

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 SRELIP Levee Cross Section Profile View, Station 1471+30, Sacramento River East Levee, GEI Consultants, 2015
Figure 3 SRELIP Levee Cross Section Parameters, Station 1471+30, Sacramento River East Levee, GEI Consultants, 2015
Figure 4 Boring 2F-05-G3-2 Liquefaction Analysis, Station 1472+08, Sacramento River East Levee, Kleinfelder, 2024
Figure 5 See-Harder Plot for Residual Strength, Median Equivalent Clean Sand Blow Count, URS, 2015
Figure 6 Correlated Shear-Wave Velocity Profile, Levee Center Line & SC Cut-off Wall Figure 7 Shear-Wave Velocity Cross-Section
Figure 8 to 15 Modulus Reduction and Shear Stress vs Shear Strain Figure 16 PM4Sand & PM4Silt Sub-Units Used in Calibration Figures 17 to 20 Cyclic Stress Ratio vs Number of Cycles to 98% Ru, 1% Strain, and 3% Strain Figures 21 to 25 Spectral Matching Results for Input Time Histories Figure 26 Filtered Input Time History Response Spectra
Figures 27 to 28 FLAC Modeling Staging for Geostatic Condition Figures 29 to 30 Total Stress, Pore-Pressure, and Effective Stress Cross-Sections, Geostatic Condition Figures 31 to 33 Comparison of Response Spectra and FLAC Response Spectra at Base, Levee Crest, and Landside Surface of FLAC Model
Figures 34 to 36 Comparison of Response Spectra and FLAC Response Spectra at Base, Levee Crest, and Landside Surface of FLAC Model (Reverse Polarity)
Figures 37 to 41 Maximum Shear Strain Results at End of Shaking, Various GMs (Recorded Polarity and Reverse Polarity)
Figures 42 to 46 Maximum Ru Results at End of Shaking, Various GMs (Recorded Polarity and Reverse Polarity)
Figures 47 to 51 Horizontal Displacement Contours, Various GMs (Recorded Polarity and Reverse Polarity)
Figures 52 to 56 Vertical Displacement Contours, Various GMs (Recorded Polarity and Reverse Polarity)
24001006.001A/SAC25R177987 – App F April 16, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Figures 57 to 61 Levee Crest Displacement Time Histories, Various GMs (Recorded Polarity and Reverse Polarity)
Figure 62 Levee Crest Displacement Time Histories, GM5 (PM4 Post Shake & Residual Strength Condition Scenario Comparison)
¨¦§5
¨¦§80
¨¦§80
¨¦§5
¨¦§80
¨¦§80
£¤50
£¤50
ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
160
ÃÆ
CALIFORNIA ÃÆ 16

CALIFORNIA
99 ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
16 ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
16 !(
BLNL-5
BLNL-4
BLNL-2
SREL-1
BLNL-1
BLNL-3
SREL-5
SREL-4
SREL-9
SREL-6
ARSL-4
ARSL-5
ARSL-2
SREL-10
SREL-2
SREL-3
ARSL-1
SREL-7
ARSL-3
ARSL-6
SREL-8
1425+00
1178+00
1770+00
1635+49
1019+00
1707+50
1245+00 1431+25
1335+86
1286+00
1086+00
1135+00
1117+55
1381+93
1671+00
1195+00
1214+00
987+18
993+18
1136+74
1034+10
1004+40
1471+30: Approximate Location of
GEI Cross-Section for FLAC 2D Model
Pocket
NTMN-5
NTMN-4
1000+00

SITE MAP
PROJECT:

FILE NAME:

FIGURE
DRAWN:

CHECKED BY:

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

DRAWN BY:
24001006.001A
JAN 2025
A.LEONARD
SACRAMENTO, CA FILE: G:\Client\SAFCA\24001006.001A-SeismicPerformanceSumReport\PRO\SAFECA_working\SAFECA_working.aprx JByrd 2/6/2025 0 2 4
Kilometers
Locations are Approximate £

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE SUMMARY REPORT

ULDC & FEMA LEVEE CERTIFICATION PROJECT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: Earthstar Geographics; ESRI World Imagery, Maxar Vivid Advanded image dates
4/12/2022, 4/26/2022, and 5/4/2022; SACOG Orthos image
date 3/18/2022.

F1-1_ARSLS_SiteMap_GEI
Explanation
!( Analysis Control Point
ARSL-4 Seismic Segment
R.HOCHSTATTER
American River
Sacramento
River
ARSL - American River South Levee
SREL - Sacramento River East Levee
BLNL - Beach Lake North Levee
1 FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. MODEL REFERENCE SRELIP Levee Cross Section Profile View
Station 1471+30
Sacramento River East Levee
GEI Consultants, 2015

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 RHTC www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:
0 -80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10
10203040
-120-110-100
-90
-140-130
8090
100110120
506070
-160-150
130140150160170180190200
-40
-50
-60
-70
0 -10
-20
-30
30 20
10 60
50 40
-40
ELEVATION - FEET (NAVD 88)
-50
-60
-70
0 -10
-20
-30
30 20
10 60
50 40
ELEVATION - FEET (NAVD 88)
Waterside Landside
-90
-100
-110
-120
-80
-100
-110
-120
-80
-90
70 70
Note:
*Historic explorations are denoted by an asterisk(*) after the exploration name. Locations and profiles for these records are based on available information. 10 Rf,% 0
TD Elev. -21.20 ft
qt
SREL13_013CGS Elev.: 19.15 ft
Projected: -362 ft
500 10 Rf,% 0
TD Elev. -54.91 ft
qt
SREL14_062C
GS Elev.: 20.46 ft
Projected: 291 ft
500
CL
ML
SM
ML
SM
SP
SW-SM
SP-SM
54 49
47 54
3 12
12 5
3 4
4 15
24 24
36 % Fines
WM0009_011B
GS Elev.: 16.50 ft
Projected: -12 ft
TD Elev. -25.00 ft
N60(ASTM)
495967
SM
ML
SM
ML
SM
SP-SM
ML
49 66
41 35125
9 7
8 7
2 % Fines
KS-SR12-017B
GS Elev.: 16 ft
Projected: -27 ft
TD Elev. -45.60 ft
N60(ASTM)
SM
SCB Wall
1 6
2 Sandy ML
4 SP-SM
Kh = 8.0x10-3 cm/sec
Kv = 4.0x10-3 cm/sec
ɸ' = 33°, c' = 0 psf
5 Kh = 4.0x10-6 cm/sec
Kv = 1.0x10-6 cm/sec
ɸ' = 33°, c' = 100 psf
ɸ = 4.5°, c = 2455 psf
CL
3 SM
210220230240
200-YEAR EVALUATION WSE (EL. 30.94 FT)

BOTTOM OF MODEL
60 69
83 39
30 6
7 5
11 5
5 3
4 3
8 7
5 5
5 3
5 5
7 9
7 13
12 15
11 17
15 16
20 12
19 13
28 17
13 16
15 20
21 23
24 45
16 20
32 % Fines 2F-05-G3-2*
GS Elev.: 35 ft
Projected: 112 ft
TD Elev. -71.75 ft
N60(ASTM)
71 47
24 5
4 3
0 3
4 4
7 3
8 5
7 11
7 16
12 21
20 27
20 24
12 15
19 19
19 25
15 49
31 37
47 59
44 33
20 20
40 56
% Fines 2F-05-G3-2A*
GS Elev.: 18 ft
Projected: 24 ft
TD Elev. -76.53 ft
N60(ASTM)
Kh = 2.0x10-3 cm/sec
Kv = 5.0x10-4 cm/sec
ɸ' = 30°, c' = 0 psf
Kh = 1.0x10-6 cm/sec
Kv = 1.0x10-6 cm/sec
ɸ' = 4°, c' = 360 psf
ɸ = 0°, c = 500 psf
Kh = 6.0x10-4 cm/sec
Kv = 1.5x10-4 cm/sec
ɸ' = 31°, c' = 0 psf
Kh = 6.0x10-5 cm/sec
Kv = 1.5x10-5 cm/sec
ɸ' = 36°, c' = 25 psf
ɸ = 11.4°, c = 480 psf
0 15 30 60 90

SCALE IN FEET
Sacramento River East Levee
Improvement Project
Sacramento, CA
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Figure 8-442
Analysis Cross-Section
Reach 20, Station 1471+30
Sacramento River East Levee
October 2015
2 Approximate Groundwater
Elevation used in Seismic
Analyses Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable Liquefaction
Notes Non-Liquefiable
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. MODEL REFERENCE SRELIP Levee Cross Section Parameters
Station 1471+30
Sacramento River East Levee
GEI Consultants, 2015

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 RHTC www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

Sacramento River East Levee
Improvement Project
Sacramento, CA
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency October 2015 Figure 8-455 Remediated Conditions
Stability Model
Waterside Landside
Circular 200-yr Remediated
Horizontal Distance (ft)
-210 -180 -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elevation (ft, NAVD88)
-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Reach 20 – Sta. 1471+30
Cutoff Wall
Layer Name Saturated
Unit Weight
Drained Parameters Undrained
Parameters
c’ ϕ’c ϕ
(pcf) (psf) (deg.) (psf) (deg.)
(1) SM 120 0 30 -- --
(2) Sandy ML 115 25 36 480 11.4
(3) SM 120 0 31 -- --
(4) SP-SM 125 0 33 -- --
(5) CL 120 100 33 2455 4.5
(6) SCB Wall 120 360 4 500 0
Bottom of proposed
cutoff wall
3 2
1 4
6 5
3 Approximate Groundwater
Elevation used in Seismic
Analyses Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable
Liquefaction
Notes Likely Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable
Notes:

SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.

References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are

1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=NfieldCE).

2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),

3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.

4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 9.3 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 25.7 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.15 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 11.6 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 23.4 Energy Ratio = 80 Mw = 6.7 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, C fines N1,60,CS
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)
Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No)Final Assessment(Yes/No)(Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;
Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25;
Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
1 1 8 ML 125 125 125 125 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 13 1.17 1.00 7 2.1 0.75 9 15 35 1.3 19 0.368 24.1 0.125 2.93 No No Yes ML - Yes No 2.93 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 4 4 SM 115 470 470 470 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 3.0 0.75 5 7 12 1.1 8 0.118 94.8 0.131 0.90 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.90 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 7 4 SM 115 815 815 815 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 4.0 0.78 5 7 12 1.1 8 0.102 163.0 0.130 0.78 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.78 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10 2 SM 115 1160 1160 1160 1.3 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 4.9 0.83 3 3 12 1.2 4 0.067 228.7 0.128 0.52 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.52 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 3 ML 115 1505 1505 1505 1.2 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 4 5 35 1.5 7 0.078 275.2 0.119 0.66 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.66 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 16 2 ML 115 1850 1850 1850 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 2 1.10 1.00 7 6.7 0.91 3 3 60 35 1.7 5 0.063 314.5 0.111 0.57 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.57 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 18 6 ML 120 2090 2090 2090 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 8 8 69 35 1.4 11 0.097 336.0 0.104 0.93 Yes No Yes ML 33 7 Yes Yes No 0.93 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 20 5 ML 120 2330 2330 2330 0.9 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 7.9 0.94 7 7 35 1.4 9 0.082 357.5 0.100 0.82 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.82 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 22 4 ML 120 2570 2570 2570 0.9 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 8.5 0.95 6 5 35 1.5 8 0.070 374.0 0.095 0.74 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.74 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 24 4 ML 120 2810 2810 2773 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 9.1 0.96 6 5 83 35 1.5 7 0.067 390.5 0.092 0.73 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.73 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 11 26 4 ML 120 3050 3031 2888 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 9.8 0.96 5 4 35 1.6 7 0.062 407.0 0.092 0.68 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.68 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 12 28 2 ML 115 3280 3136 2993 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 2 1.10 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 3 2 35 2.0 4 0.052 423.5 0.092 0.57 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.57 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 13 30 4 ML 120 3520 3252 3108 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 11.0 0.98 5 4 35 1.6 6 0.061 440.0 0.092 0.66 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.66 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 14 32 4 ML 120 3760 3367 3223 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 11.6 0.98 5 4 35 1.6 6 0.060 454.0 0.092 0.66 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.66 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 15 34 5 ML 120 4000 3482 3339 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 12.2 0.98 7 5 35 1.5 7 0.064 467.9 0.091 0.70 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.70 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 16 36 7 SM 115 4230 3587 3444 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 12.8 0.99 9 7 39 35 1.4 10 0.075 481.9 0.091 0.82 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.82 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 17 38 5 SM 115 4460 3692 3549 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 13.4 0.99 7 5 12 1.2 6 0.055 495.9 0.091 0.61 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.61 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 18 40 10 SM 125 4710 3818 3674 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.11 1.00 7 14.0 0.99 13 10 30 30 1.3 12 0.089 509.8 0.090 0.99 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.99 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 19 42 9 SM 125 4960 3943 3799 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 14.6 0.99 12 8 12 1.1 9 0.072 523.2 0.090 0.80 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.80 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 20 44 11 SP-SM 125 5210 4068 3925 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 15.2 0.99 15 10 8 1.1 11 0.080 536.3 0.089 0.90 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.90 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 21 46 8 SP-SM 125 5460 4193 4050 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 15.8 0.99 11 7 6 6 1.1 8 0.063 549.2 0.088 0.71 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.71 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 22 49 13 SP-SM 125 5835 4381 4238 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 16.8 1.00 17 12 8 1.1 12 0.087 568.0 0.087 1.00 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 1.00 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 23 52 11 SP-SM 125 6210 4569 4425 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.11 1.00 7 17.7 1.00 15 10 7 7 1.1 10 0.074 586.2 0.086 0.86 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.86 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 24 55 12 SP-SM 125 6585 4757 4613 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 18.6 1.00 16 10 8 1.1 11 0.077 603.8 0.085 0.91 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.91 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 25 58 15 SP-SM 125 6960 4944 4801 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.14 1.00 7 19.5 1.00 20 13 8 1.1 14 0.092 620.9 0.084 1.09 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 1.09 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 26 61 9 SP-SM 125 7335 5132 4989 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 20.4 1.00 12 7 8 1.1 8 0.060 637.0 0.083 0.72 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.72 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 27 64 14 SP-SM 125 7710 5320 5177 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 21.3 1.00 19 11 8 1.1 12 0.081 652.1 0.082 0.99 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.99 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 28 67 10 SP-SM 125 8085 5508 5364 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 22.3 1.00 13 8 5 5 1.1 8 0.061 667.3 0.081 0.75 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.75 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 29 70 21 SP-SM 125 8460 5696 5552 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 12 1.19 1.00 7 23.2 1.00 28 17 8 1.1 18 0.119 682.4 0.080 1.49 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 1.49 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

Conclusions and Comments
11/12/2024
2F-05-G3-2
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Z. Zafir
SAFCA: Seismic Calculations to Support FLAC 2D Deformation Analysis R. Hochstatter
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 1472+08
PROJECT NUMBER:

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

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: Sacramento River
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/FLAC Modeling/Liq Analyses and (N1)60s/2F_05_G3_2_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/13/2025
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. MODEL REFERENCE Boring 2F-05-G3-2 Liquefaction Analysis
Station 1472+08
Sacramento River East Levee
Kleinfelder, 2024

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 RHTC www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/04 Seismic/FLAC Modeling/Liq Analyses and (N1)60s/2F_05_G3_2_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/13/2025
4 FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Seed-Harder Plot for Residual Strength
Median Equivalent Clean Sand Blow
Count
URS, 2015

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 RHTC 50 For the ULE Program

1. Use the lower 1/3 line for
Sur selection

2. At or below (N1)60-cs = 4,
use Sur = 50 psf
50 Equivalent Clean Sand Blowcount, (N1)60-cs-Sur
5 -140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0 20
40 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Elevation (ft) Shear Wave Velocity (ft/s)
SB Cut-off Wall Vs Profile at Levee Center Line
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Correlated Shear-Wave Velocity Profile
Levee Center Line & SB Cut-off Wall

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 6 The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Shear-Wave Velocity Cross-Section
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ Legend Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/s) 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') 7 0.0

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8

0.9 1.0

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
G/Gmax
Shear Strain (%)
G/Gmax
Center: Darendeli (2001) Sig3
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Sig3
Center: Shear Strength
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Sig3
Center: Shear Strength
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Modulus Reduction and Shear Stress vs
Shear Strain
Material: 1 - SM Embankment Fill

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 8 0.0

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8

0.9 1.0

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
G/Gmax
Shear Strain (%)
G/Gmax
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
Center: Shear Strength
Landside: Shear Strength
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
Center: Shear Strength
Landside: Shear Strength
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Modulus Reduction and Shear Stress vs
Shear Strain
Material: 2 - Sandy ML Foundation (Above
Groundwater)

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 9 0.0

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8

0.9 1.0

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
G/Gmax
Shear Strain (%)
G/Gmax
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
Center: Shear Strength
Landside: Shear Strength
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
Center: Shear Strength
Landside: Shear Strength
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Modulus Reduction and Shear Stress vs
Shear Strain
Material: 2 - Sandy ML Foundation (Below
Groundwater)

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 10 0.0

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8

0.9 1.0

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
G/Gmax
Shear Strain (%)
G/Gmax
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
Center: Shear Strength
Landside: Shear Strength
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
Center: Shear Strength
Landside: Shear Strength
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Modulus Reduction and Shear Stress vs
Shear Strain
Material: 3 - SM Foundation

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 11 0.0

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8

0.9 1.0

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
G/Gmax
Shear Strain (%)
G/Gmax
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Waterside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Waterside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
Center: Shear Strength
Landside: Shear Strength
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Waterside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
Center: Shear Strength
Landside: Shear Strength
Waterside: Shear Strength
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Modulus Reduction and Shear Stress vs
Shear Strain
Material: 4 - SP-SM

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 12 0.0

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8

0.9 1.0

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
G/Gmax
Shear Strain (%)
G/Gmax
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Waterside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Waterside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
Center: Shear Strength
Landside: Shear Strength
Waterside: Shear Strength
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Landside: Darendeli (2001)
Waterside: Darendeli (2001)
Sig4
Center: Shear Strength
Landside: Shear Strength
Waterside: Shear Strength
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Modulus Reduction and Shear Stress vs
Shear Strain
Material: 5 - CL

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 13 0.0

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8

0.9 1.0

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
G/Gmax
Shear Strain (%)
G/Gmax
Center: Darendeli (2001) Sig3
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Sig3
Center: Shear Strength
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Sig3
Center: Shear Strength
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Modulus Reduction and Shear Stress vs
Shear Strain
Material: 6 - Cutoff Wall (Above
Groundwater)

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 14 0.0

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8

0.9 1.0

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
G/Gmax
Shear Strain (%)
G/Gmax
Center: Darendeli (2001) Sig3
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Sig3
Center: Shear Strength
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Shear Stress, τ
Center: Darendeli (2001)
Sig3
Center: Shear Strength
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Modulus Reduction and Shear Stress vs
Shear Strain
Material: 6 - Cutoff Wall (Below
Groundwater)

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 15 The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 5b: CL Extension (Bathtub) 5: CL 1: SM Embankment Fill
2a: Sandy ML Foundation (Above GW)
4: SP-SM Sub Units - SP#
4: SP-SM (MC+Hysteretic Surface Zones)
Legend 2b: ML Foundation (Below GW) Sub Units - ML# 3: SM Foundation Sub Units - SM# SM1ML1 ML2 ML3 ML4
3: SM (MC+Hysteretic Surface Zones)
SM2 SM3 SM4 SM5 SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6 SP7 SP8 SP9 SP10 2b: ML (MC+Hysteretic Surface Zones)
0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50')
PM4Sand & PM4Silt Sub-Units Used in Calibration
FLAC 2D Model
16 Tracked Location for Time Histories
& Response Spectra
0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100 1000
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 98% Ru
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo =0.05) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo =0.05) Sub-Unit 3 (hpo =0.10)Sub-Unit 4 (hpo =0.15) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100 1000
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 1% Strain
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo =0.05) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo =0.05) Sub-Unit 3 (hpo =0.10)Sub-Unit 4 (hpo =0.15) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100 1000
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 3% Strain
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo =0.05) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo =0.05) Sub-Unit 3 (hpo =0.10)Sub-Unit 4 (hpo =0.15) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100 1000
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 98% Ru (w/ Alpha)
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo =0.05) (α =0.3) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo =0.05) (α =0.0) Sub-Unit 3 (hpo =0.10) (α =0.2)Sub-Unit 4 (hpo =0.15) (α =0.0) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100 1000
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 1% Strain (w/ Alpha)
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo =0.05) (α =0.3) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo =0.05) (α =0.0) Sub-Unit 3 (hpo =0.10) (α =0.2)Sub-Unit 4 (hpo =0.15) (α =0.0) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100 1000
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 3% Strain (w/ Alpha)
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo =0.05) (α =0.3) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo =0.05) (α =0.0) Sub-Unit 3 (hpo =0.10) (α =0.2)Sub-Unit 4 (hpo =0.15) (α =0.0) Target The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DRAWN:PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Cyclic Stress Ratio vs Number of Cycles to 98% RU, 1% Strain, and 3% Strain Material: 2b - Sandy ML Foundation (Below Groundwater) AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 17 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 98% Ru
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo = 0.125) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo = 0.125) Sub-Unit 3 (hpo = 0.150)Sub-Unit 4 (hpo = 0.150) Sub-Unit 5 (hpo = 0.125) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 1% Strain
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo = 0.125) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo = 0.125) Sub-Unit 3 (hpo = 0.150)Sub-Unit 4 (hpo = 0.150) Sub-Unit 5 (hpo = 0.125) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 3% Strain
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo = 0.125) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo = 0.125) Sub-Unit 3 (hpo = 0.150)Sub-Unit 4 (hpo = 0.150) Sub-Unit 5 (hpo = 0.125) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 98% Ru (w/ Alpha)
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo = 0.125) (α =0.3) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo = 0.125) (α =0.2)Sub-Unit 3 (hpo = 0.150) (α =0.0) Sub-Unit 4 (hpo = 0.150) (α =0.1)Sub-Unit 5 (hpo = 0.125) (α =0.0) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 1% Strain (w/ Alpha)
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo = 0.125) (α =0.3) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo = 0.125) (α =0.2)Sub-Unit 3 (hpo = 0.150) (α =0.0) Sub-Unit 4 (hpo = 0.150) (α =0.1)Sub-Unit 5 (hpo = 0.125) (α =0.0) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 3% Strain (w/ Alpha)
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo = 0.125) (α =0.3) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo = 0.125) (α =0.2)Sub-Unit 3 (hpo = 0.150) (α =0.0) Sub-Unit 4 (hpo = 0.150) (α =0.1)Sub-Unit 5 (hpo = 0.125) (α =0.0) Target The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DRAWN:PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Cyclic Stress Ratio vs Number of Cycles to 98% RU, 1% Strain, and 3% Strain Material: 3 - SM Foundation AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 18 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 98% Ru
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo = 0.1) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo = 0.075) Sub-Unit 3 (hpo = 0.075)Sub-Unit 4 (hpo = 0.075) Sub-Unit 5 (hpo = 0.1) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 1% Strain
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo = 0.1) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo = 0.075) Sub-Unit 3 (hpo = 0.075)Sub-Unit 4 (hpo = 0.075) Sub-Unit 5 (hpo = 0.1) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 3% Strain
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo = 0.1) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo = 0.075) Sub-Unit 3 (hpo = 0.075)Sub-Unit 4 (hpo = 0.075) Sub-Unit 5 (hpo = 0.1) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 98% Ru (w/ Alpha)
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo = 0.1) (α = 0.0) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo = 0.075) (α = 0.1)Sub-Unit 3 (hpo = 0.075) (α = 0.1) Sub-Unit 4 (hpo = 0.075) (α = 0.0)Sub-Unit 5 (hpo = 0.1) (α = 0.1) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 1% Strain (w/ Alpha)
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo = 0.1) (α = 0.0) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo = 0.075) (α = 0.1)Sub-Unit 3 (hpo = 0.075) (α = 0.1) Sub-Unit 4 (hpo = 0.075) (α = 0.0)Sub-Unit 5 (hpo = 0.1) (α = 0.1) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 3% Strain (w/ Alpha)
Sub-Unit 1 (hpo = 0.1) (α = 0.0) Sub-Unit 2 (hpo = 0.075) (α = 0.1)Sub-Unit 3 (hpo = 0.075) (α = 0.1) Sub-Unit 4 (hpo = 0.075) (α = 0.0)Sub-Unit 5 (hpo = 0.1) (α = 0.1) Target The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DRAWN:PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Cyclic Stress Ratio vs Number of Cycles to 98% RU, 1% Strain, and 3% Strain Material: 4 - SP-SM (Sub Units 1-5) AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 19 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 98% Ru
Sub-Unit 6 (hpo = 0.1) Sub-Unit 7 (hpo = 0.125) Sub-Unit 8 (hpo = 0.125)Sub-Unit 9 (hpo = 0.125) Sub-Unit 10 (hpo = 0.125) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 1% Strain
Sub-Unit 6 (hpo = 0.1) Sub-Unit 7 (hpo = 0.125) Sub-Unit 8 (hpo = 0.125)Sub-Unit 9 (hpo = 0.125) Sub-Unit 10 (hpo = 0.125) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 3% Strain
Sub-Unit 6 (hpo = 0.1) Sub-Unit 7 (hpo = 0.125) Sub-Unit 8 (hpo = 0.125)Sub-Unit 9 (hpo = 0.125) Sub-Unit 10 (hpo = 0.125) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 98% Ru (w/ Alpha)
Sub-Unit 6 (hpo = 0.1) (α = 0.1) Sub-Unit 7 (hpo = 0.125) (α = 0.0)Sub-Unit 8 (hpo = 0.125) (α = 0.0) Sub-Unit 9 (hpo = 0.125) (α = 0.0)Sub-Unit 10 (hpo = 0.125) (α = 0.0) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 1% Strain (w/ Alpha)
Sub-Unit 6 (hpo = 0.1) (α = 0.1) Sub-Unit 7 (hpo = 0.125) (α = 0.0)Sub-Unit 8 (hpo = 0.125) (α = 0.0) Sub-Unit 9 (hpo = 0.125) (α = 0.0)Sub-Unit 10 (hpo = 0.125) (α = 0.0) Target 0 0.020.040.060.08

0.1 0.120.14
1 10 100
CSR
# of Cycles
# of Cycles to 3% Strain (w/ Alpha)
Sub-Unit 6 (hpo = 0.1) (α = 0.1) Sub-Unit 7 (hpo = 0.125) (α = 0.0)Sub-Unit 8 (hpo = 0.125) (α = 0.0) Sub-Unit 9 (hpo = 0.125) (α = 0.0)Sub-Unit 10 (hpo = 0.125) (α = 0.0) Target The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DRAWN:PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Cyclic Stress Ratio vs Number of Cycles to 98% RU, 1% Strain, and 3% Strain Material: 4 - SP-SM (Sub Units 6-10) AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 20 File Name:

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
Checked By: Z. Zafir
TH Plots.xlsx
Project No: 24001006.001A Spectral Matching Results
RSN-188-135 (H2)
Imperial Valley-06 (1979) / Plaster City
FIGURE:

Date: 3/6/2025
21 Drawn By: T. Covill
5%-Damped
File Name:

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
Checked By: Z. Zafir
TH Plots.xlsx
Project No: 24001006.001A Spectral Matching Results
RSN-836-140 (H2)
Landers (1992) / Baker Fire Station
FIGURE:

Date: 3/6/2025
22 Drawn By: T. Covill
5%-Damped
File Name:

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
Checked By: Z. Zafir
TH Plots.xlsx
Project No: 24001006.001A Spectral Matching Results
RSN-1094-315 (H2)
Northridge-01 (1994) / West Covina – S Orange Ave
FIGURE:

Date: 3/6/2025
23 Drawn By: T. Covill
5%-Damped
File Name:

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
Checked By: Z. Zafir
TH Plots.xlsx
Project No: 24001006.001A Spectral Matching Results
RSN-2744-E (H2)
Chi-Chi, Taiwan (1999) / CHY088
FIGURE:

Date: 3/6/2025
24 Drawn By: T. Covill
5%-Damped
File Name:

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
Checked By: Z. Zafir
TH Plots.xlsx
Project No: 24001006.001A Spectral Matching Results
RSN-6933-N14E (H1)
Imperial Valley-06 (1979) / Plaster City
FIGURE:

Date: 3/6/2025
25 Drawn By: T. Covill
5%-Damped
Project No: 24001006.001A
Filtered Input Time History Response Spectra
Figure:

Date: 1/27/2025
Drawn By: T. Covill

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES,

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: Z. Zafir
File Name: TH_RSP Plots.xlsx
0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

0.3 0.35

0.4 0.45
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Spectral Acceleration (g) Period (s)
Input Target "Outcrop" GM1 GM2 GM3 GM4 GM5 Average
5%-Damped
0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

0.3 0.35

0.4 0.45

0.01 0.1 1 Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period (s)
Input Target "Outcrop" GM1 GM2 GM3 GM4 GM5 Average
5 5%-Damped
26 The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') ANALYSIS FIGURES FLAC Modeling Staging for Geostatic Condition
(1 of 2)

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ Geostatic Stage 1: No Levee Geostatic Stage 2: Add Levee Legend 2a: ML Foundation (Above GW) 2b: ML Foundation (Below GW) 1: SM Embankment Fill 3: SM Foundation 4: SP-SM 5: CL 5b: CL Extension 6a: Cut-off Wall (Above GW) 6b: Cut-off Wall (Below GW) 27 The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
FLAC Modeling Staging for Geostatic Condition
(2 of 2)

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') Geostatic Stage 3: Add Cut-off Wall Legend 2a: ML Foundation (Above GW) 2b: ML Foundation (Below GW) 1: SM Embankment Fill 3: SM Foundation 4: SP-SM 5: CL 5b: CL Extension 6a: Cut-off Wall (Above GW) 6b: Cut-off Wall (Below GW) 28 The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Total Stress and Pore-Pressure Cross-Section
Geostatic Condtion
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50')Vertical Total Stress Contours Pore Pressure Contours Legend Pore Pressure (psf) Vertical Total
Stress (psf)
29 The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Effective Stress Cross-Section
Geostatic Condtion
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') Vertical Effective Stress Contours Legend Vertical Effective Stress (psf) Horizontal Effective Stress Contours
Horizontal Effective
Stress (psf)
30 Project No: 24001006.001A Comparison of "Outcrop" Target Response Spectra and FLAC Response Spectra
Base of FLAC Model
Figure:

Date: 3/6/2025
31 Drawn By: T. Covill

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES,

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: Y. Zhang
File Name: FLAC_RSP
Results.xlsx
0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Spectral Acceleration (g) Period (s)
Input Target "Outcrop" Input Target "Outcrop/2" GM1 GM2 GM3 GM4 GM5 Average 5%-Damped
0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.01 0.1 1 Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period (s)
Input Target "Outcrop" Input Target "Outcrop/2" GM1 GM2 GM3 GM4 GM5 Average 5 5%-Damped
Project No: 24001006.001A Comparison of Response Spectra and FLAC Response Spectra
Levee Crest of FLAC Model
Figure:

Date: 3/6/2025
32 Drawn By: T. Covill

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES,

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: Y. Zhang
File Name: FLAC_RSP
Results.xlsx

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Spectral Acceleration (g) Period (s)
Surface PSHA Input Target "Outcrop" Input Target "Outcrop/2" GM1 GM2 GM3
GM4 GM5 Average
5%-Damped

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.01 0.1 1 Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period (s)
Surface PSHA Input Target "Outcrop" Input Target "Outcrop/2" GM1 GM2 GM3
GM4 GM5 Average
5 5%-Damped
Project No: 24001006.001A Comparison of Response Spectra and FLAC Response Spectra
Landside Surface of FLAC Model
Figure:

Date: 3/6/2025
33 Drawn By: T. Covill

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES,

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: Y. Zhang
File Name: FLAC_RSP
Results.xlsx

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Spectral Acceleration (g) Period (s)
Surface PSHA Input Target "Outcrop" Input Target "Outcrop/2" GM1 GM2 GM3
GM4 GM5 Average
5%-Damped

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.01 0.1 1 Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period (s)
Surface PSHA Input Target "Outcrop" Input Target "Outcrop/2" GM1 GM2 GM3
GM4 GM5 Average
5 5%-Damped
Project No: 24001006.001A Comparison of "Outcrop" Target Response Spectra and FLAC Response Spectra
Base of FLAC Model (Reverse Polarity)
Figure:

Date: 3/6/2025
34 Drawn By: T. Covill

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES,

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: Y. Zhang
File Name: FLAC_RSP
Results.xlsx
0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Spectral Acceleration (g) Period (s)
Input Target "Outcrop" Input Target "Outcrop/2" GM1 - Reverse GM2 - Reverse GM3 - Reverse GM4 - Reverse GM5 - Reverse Average
5%-Damped
0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.01 0.1 1 Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period (s)
Input Target "Outcrop" Input Target "Outcrop/2" GM1 - Reverse GM2 - Reverse GM3 - Reverse GM4 - Reverse GM5 - Reverse Average
5 5%-Damped
Project No: 24001006.001A Comparison of Response Spectra and FLAC Response Spectra
Levee Crest of FLAC Model (Reverse
Polarity)
Figure:

Date: 3/6/2025
35 Drawn By: T. Covill

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES,

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: Y. Zhang
File Name: FLAC_RSP
Results.xlsx

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Spectral Acceleration (g) Period (s)
Surface PSHA Input Target "Outcrop" Input Target "Outcrop/2" GM1 - Reverse GM2 - Reverse GM3 - Reverse
GM4 - Reverse GM5 - Reverse Average
5%-Damped

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.01 0.1 1 Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period (s)
Surface PSHA Input Target "Outcrop" Input Target "Outcrop/2" GM1 - Reverse GM2 - Reverse GM3 - Reverse
GM4 - Reverse GM5 - Reverse Average
5 5%-Damped
Project No: 24001006.001A Comparison of Response Spectra and FLAC Response Spectra
Landside Surface of FLAC Model (Reverse
Polarity)
Figure:

Date: 3/6/2025
36 Drawn By: T. Covill

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES,

CALIFORNIA
Checked By: Y. Zhang
File Name: FLAC_RSP
Results.xlsx

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Spectral Acceleration (g) Period (s)
Surface PSHA Input Target "Outcrop" Input Target "Outcrop/2" GM1 - Reverse GM2 - Reverse GM3 - Reverse
GM4 - Reverse GM5 - Reverse Average
5%-Damped

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.01 0.1 1 Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period (s)
Surface PSHA Input Target "Outcrop" Input Target "Outcrop/2" GM1 - Reverse GM2 - Reverse GM3 - Reverse
GM4 - Reverse GM5 - Reverse Average
5 5%-Damped
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Maximum Shear Strain Results at End of Shaking
GM1 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 37 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM1: Max Shear Strain Contours GM1 (Reverse): Max Shear Strain Contours Legend Max Shear Strain (Unitless)
Max Shear
Strain (Unitless)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Maximum Shear Strain Results at End of Shaking
GM2 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 38 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM2: Max Shear Strain Contours GM2 (Reverse): Max Shear Strain Contours Legend Max Shear Strain (Unitless)
Max Shear
Strain (Unitless)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Maximum Shear Strain Results at End of Shaking
GM3 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 39 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM3: Max Shear Strain Contours GM3 (Reverse): Max Shear Strain Contours Legend Max Shear Strain (Unitless)
Max Shear
Strain (Unitless)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Maximum Shear Strain Results at End of Shaking
GM4 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 40 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM4: Max Shear Strain Contours GM4 (Reverse): Max Shear Strain Contours Legend Max Shear Strain (Unitless)
Max Shear
Strain (Unitless)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Maximum Shear Strain Results at End of Shaking
GM5 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 41 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM5: Max Shear Strain Contours GM5 (Reverse): Max Shear Strain Contours Legend Max Shear Strain (Unitless)
Max Shear
Strain (Unitless)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Maximum Ru Results at End of Shaking
GM1 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 42 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM1: Max Ru Contours GM1 (Reverse): Max Ru Contours Legend Max Ru (Unitless)
Max Ru
(Unitless)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Maximum Ru Results at End of Shaking
GM2 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 43 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM2: Max Ru Contours GM2 (Reverse): Max Ru Contours Legend Max Ru (Unitless)
Max Ru
(Unitless)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Maximum Ru Results at End of Shaking
GM3 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 44 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM3: Max Ru Contours GM3 (Reverse): Max Ru Contours Legend Max Ru (Unitless)
Max Ru
(Unitless)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Maximum Ru Results at End of Shaking
GM4 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 45 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM4: Max Ru Contours GM4 (Reverse): Max Ru Contours Legend Max Ru (Unitless)
Max Ru
(Unitless)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Maximum Ru Results at End of Shaking
GM5 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 46 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM5: Max Ru Contours GM5 (Reverse): Max Ru Contours Legend Max Ru (Unitless)
Max Ru
(Unitless)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Horizontal Displacement Contours
GM1 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 47 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM1: Horizontal Displacement Contours GM1 (Reverse): Horizontal Displacement Contours Legend Horizontal Displacement (ft)
Horizontal
Displacement (ft)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Horizontal Displacement Contours
GM2 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 48 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM2: Horizontal Displacement Contours GM2 (Reverse): Horizontal Displacement Contours Legend Horizontal Displacement (ft)
Horizontal
Displacement (ft)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Horizontal Displacement Contours
GM3 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 49 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM3: Horizontal Displacement Contours GM3 (Reverse): Horizontal Displacement Contours Legend Horizontal Displacement (ft)
Horizontal
Displacement (ft)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Horizontal Displacement Contours
GM4 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 50 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM4: Horizontal Displacement Contours GM4 (Reverse): Horizontal Displacement Contours Legend Horizontal Displacement (ft)
Horizontal
Displacement (ft)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Horizontal Displacement Contours
GM5 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 51 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM5: Horizontal Displacement Contours GM5 (Reverse): Horizontal Displacement Contours Legend Horizontal Displacement (ft)
Horizontal
Displacement (ft)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Vertical Displacement Contours
GM1 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 52 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM1: Vertical Displacement Contours GM1 (Reverse): Vertical Displacement Contours Legend Vertical Displacement (ft)
Vertical
Displacement (ft)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Vertical Displacement Contours
GM2 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 53 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM2: Vertical Displacement Contours GM2 (Reverse): Vertical Displacement Contours Legend Vertical Displacement (ft)
Vertical
Displacement (ft)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Vertical Displacement Contours
GM3 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 54 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM3: Vertical Displacement Contours GM3 (Reverse): Vertical Displacement Contours Legend Vertical Displacement (ft)
Vertical
Displacement (ft)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Vertical Displacement Contours
GM4 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 55 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM4: Vertical Displacement Contours GM4 (Reverse): Vertical Displacement Contours Legend Vertical Displacement (ft)
Vertical
Displacement (ft)
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Vertical Displacement Contours
GM5 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS
SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 24001006.001A 01/2025 TCYZ 56 0 25 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 50') GM5: Vertical Displacement Contours GM5 (Reverse): Vertical Displacement Contours Legend Vertical Displacement (ft)
Vertical
Displacement (ft)
File Name: FLAC_TH
Results.xlsx
Project No: 24001006.001A Levee Crest Displacement Time Histories GM1 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model
Figure:

Date: 3/6/2025
57 Drawn By: T. Covill

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTI
Checked By: Y. Zhang
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.20

0.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal Displacement (ft)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical Displacement (ft)
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.20

0.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal Displacement (ft)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical Displacement (ft)
0 0.51

1.52 2.53
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Abs. Magnitude Displacement
(ft)
Time (s)
GM1 GM1 - Reverse
Recorded Polarity
Reverse Polarity
Absolute Magnitude
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Project No: 24001006.001A Levee Crest Displacement Time Histories GM2 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model
Figure:

Date: 3/6/2025
58 Drawn By: T. Covill

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTI
Checked By: Y. Zhang
File Name: FLAC_TH
Results.xlsx
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50

0.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal Displacement (ft)
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50

0.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical Displacement (ft)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50

0.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal Displacement (ft)
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50

0.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical Displacement (ft)
0 0.51

1.52 2.53

3.54 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Abs. Magnitude Displacement
(ft)
Time (s)
GM2 GM2 - Reverse
Recorded Polarity
Reverse Polarity
Absolute Magnitude
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTI
Checked By: Y. Zhang
File Name: FLAC_TH
Results.xlsx
Project No: 24001006.001A Levee Crest Displacement Time Histories GM3 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model
Figure:

Date: 3/6/2025
59 Drawn By: T. Covill
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.20

0.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal Displacement (ft)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical Displacement (ft)
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.20

0.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal Displacement (ft)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical Displacement (ft)
0 0.51

1.52 2.53

3.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Abs. Magnitude Displacement
(ft)
Time (s)
GM3 GM3 - Reverse
Recorded Polarity
Reverse Polarity
Absolute Magnitude
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTI
Checked By: Y. Zhang
File Name: FLAC_TH
Results.xlsx
Project No: 24001006.001A Levee Crest Displacement Time Histories GM4 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model
Figure:

Date: 3/6/2025
60 Drawn By: T. Covill
-1.5
-1.25
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.250

0.25 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal Displacement (ft)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical Displacement (ft)
-1.5
-1.25
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.250

0.25 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal Displacement (ft)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical Displacement (ft)
0 0.51

1.52 2.53

3.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Abs. Magnitude Displacement
(ft)
Time (s)
GM4 GM4 - Reverse
Recorded Polarity
Reverse Polarity
Absolute Magnitude
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Project No: 24001006.001A Levee Crest Displacement Time Histories GM5 (Recorded Polarity & Reverse Polarity)
FLAC 2D Model
Figure:

Date: 3/7/2025
61 Drawn By: T. Covill

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTI
Checked By: Y. Zhang
File Name: FLAC_TH
Results.xlsx
-1.5
-1.25
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.250

0.25 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal Displacement (ft)
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical Displacement (ft)
-1.5
-1.25
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.250

0.25 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal Displacement (ft)
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical Displacement (ft)
0 0.51

1.52 2.53

3.54 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Abs. Magnitude Displacement
(ft)
Time (s)
GM5 GM5 - Reverse
Recorded Polarity
Reverse Polarity
Absolute Magnitude
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →
Post-Shake Dissipation →

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH LEVEE SYSTEM

SEISMIC SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTI
Checked By: Y. Zhang
File Name:

FLAC_TH
Results.xlsx
Project No: 24001006.001A Levee Crest Displacement Time Histories GM5 (PM4 Post Shake & Residual Strength
Condition Scenario Comparison)
FLAC 2D Model
Figure:

Date: 3/11/2025
62 Drawn By: T. Covill
-1.5
-1.25
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.250

0.25 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal Displacement (ft)
Levee Crest Full Residual Residual After 45 Seconds
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical Displacement (ft)
Time (s)
-0.05
-0.0250

0.025

0.05 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Horizontal Displacement (ft)
-0.05
-0.0250
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Vertical Displacement (ft)
No. of Steps
Recorded Polarity (Residual Scenario Comparison)
Residual Scenario Comparison (Static Check)
Post-Shake →
Post-Shake →

APPENDIX D
___________________________________________________________________________________

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
MBK Engineers, 2024. “American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC).” Dated December, 2024.

American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 14 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 15 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 16 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 17 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 18 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 19 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 20 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 21 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 22 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 23 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 24 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 25 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 26 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 27 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 28 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 29 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 30 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 31 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 32 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT
American River South Levee System: Levee Geometry Analysis (ULDC) Profile Sheet No. 33 of 33
F:\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American South\geometry\ARS Levee Geometry - ULDC Dec 2024.docx DRAFT

APPENDIX E
___________________________________________________________________________________

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Mead & Hunt, 2025. “American River South Levee System Due Diligence Review for ULDC & FEMA Certification, Sacramento Area Levee Certification, Phase 3, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), Project Number R1941500-120265.09.” Dated April 15, 2025.

AMERICAN RIVER SOUTH

LEVEE SYSTEM
Due Diligence Review for ULDC &
FEMA Certification
FINAL

P R E P A R E D
BY
Sacramento Area Levee Certification, Phase 3
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA)
PROJECT NUMBER R1941500-120265.09
April 15, 2025
April 15, 2025

PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
i CONTENTS

1. Background and Purpose, Need and Scope, and Report Organization...........1

1.1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Need and Scope................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Report Organization ........................................................................................................... 3

2. ULDC Section 7.12: Encroachments ...............................................................4

2.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 4

2.2.1 ULDC Criteria ...................................................................................................... 4

2.2.2 USACE Criteria.................................................................................................... 4

2.2.3 CVFPB Criteria .................................................................................................... 5

2.2.4 FEMA Criteria ...................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Results................................................................................................................................ 6

2.5 Due Diligence Review; ULDC and FEMA Compliance ...................................................... 6

3. ULDC Section 7.13: Penetrations....................................................................7

3.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 7

3.2 Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 7

3.3 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 8

3.4 Results................................................................................................................................ 8

3.5 Due Diligence Review; ULDC and FEMA Compliance ...................................................... 8

4. ULDC Section 7.14: Floodwalls, Retaining Walls, and Closure Structures....10

4.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 10

4.2 Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 10

4.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 11

4.4 Results.............................................................................................................................. 11

4.4.1 Analysis Results ................................................................................................ 14

4.4.2 Condition Assessment Results.......................................................................... 14

4.5 Due Diligence Review; ULDC and FEMA Compliance .................................................... 14

5. ULDC Section 7.17: Wind Setup and Wave Runup.......................................15

5.1 Scope of Analysis ............................................................................................................. 15

5.2 Results.............................................................................................................................. 15 ii

CONTENTS

5.3 Due Diligence Review and ULDC Compliance ................................................................ 15

6. ULDC Section 7.20: Operations and Maintenance Manuals .........................16

6.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 16

6.2 Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 16

6.3 Results.............................................................................................................................. 17

6.4 Due Diligence Review and ULDC Compliance ................................................................ 17

7. Conclusions, Recommendations, and Limitations .........................................18

7.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 18

7.1.1 Encroachments.................................................................................................. 18

7.1.2 Penetrations....................................................................................................... 18

7.1.3 Floodwalls, Retaining Walls, and Closure Structures........................................ 18

7.1.4 Wind Setup and Wave Runup ........................................................................... 18

7.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Manuals................................................................ 18

7.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................ 19

7.3 Limitations......................................................................................................................... 19

8. References ....................................................................................................21

EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1. SAFCA Levee Basin Map
EXHIBIT 2A. Map Summary of Encroachments
EXHIBIT 2B. Map Summary of Penetrations and Associated Structures EXHIBIT 2C. Map Summary of Closure Structures, Retaining Walls, and Floodwalls EXHIBIT 3A1. Table Summary of Encroachments (non-linear) EXHIBIT 3A2. Table Summary of Linear Encroachments
EXHIBIT 3B. Table Summary of Penetrations and Associated Structures EXHIBIT 3C. Table Summary of Closure Structures, Retaining Walls, and Floodwalls

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. Penetration At Risk Engineering Evaluation Technical Memorandum APPENDIX B. Penetration Exceptions Work Plan Technical Memorandum APPENDIX C. ASLS Wind Setup and Wave Runup Analysis
APPENDIX D. Additional ASLS Documentation
1 1.1 Background and Purpose
This report is part of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency’s (SAFCA) due diligence review for compliance with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations as cited in the Code of Federal Regulations in Title 44, Chapter 1, Section 65.10 (44 CFR 65.10) for the American River South Levee System (ASLS), prepared in response to the regulatory requirements of ULDC. The preparation of this report entailed gathering information related to the ASLS, including design and as-built data, geotechnical data, data from the maintaining agencies regarding closure structures, retaining walls, floodwalls, and penetrations through the levee, and conducting necessary visual observations/inspections/analysis. The data has been evaluated to determine if any segments of the ASLS do not meet ULDC criteria.

Senate Bill 5 (2007) required that the California DWR develop a set of urban levee design criteria that would be applied to all levees that provide an urban level of protection. In May of 2012, the ULDC Criteria was finalized. Since the ASLS protects an urban population, these ULDC criteria were used to assess the levee’s compliance and SAFCA’s due diligence.

Mead & Hunt is a member of SAFCA’s consultant team and is responsible for the following components to determine ULDC compliance and due diligence:
1) ULDC Section 7.12 – Levee encroachment data collection and evaluation criteria 2) ULDC Section 7.13 – Levee penetrations analysis and condition assessment 3) ULDC Section 7.14 – Floodwalls, retaining walls, and closure structures structural analysis and condition assessment
4) ULDC Section 7.17 – Wind setup and wave runup analysis 5) ULDC Section 7.20 – Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manual review The purpose of this report is to present the study objectives, criteria, assumptions, study methodology, results for the above components, and their respective determination as it pertains to ULDC compliance.

This report is a supplement to previously completed reporting regarding encroachments, penetrations, floodwalls, closure structures, retaining walls, wind setup and wave runup, and O&M manuals. The previous Mead & Hunt Certification Report (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015) was used as a reference for this report.

1.2 Need and Scope
SAFCA’s objective is to provide the Sacramento region with increased flood protection. The flood protection features under SAFCA’s jurisdiction are broadly categorized under the following groups:

Natomas Levees, North Sacramento Streams Levees, American River Levees, Sacramento River Levees South of Confluence, South Sacramento Streams Group Levees, and Folsom Dam Auxiliary Spillway (see Exhibit 1). SAFCA’s ULDC and FEMA certification efforts have been divided into five basins, as shown in Exhibit 1. The ASLS is located in the American and Sacramento River Streams group. 2 In order to maintain continuous accreditation of the affected levees and to identify what actions, if any, are required to meet the State’s ULDC 200-year level of flood protection requirements, SAFCA has undertaken this evaluation. Mead & Hunt has performed the following activities that pertain to the ASLS ULDC efforts (referenced in Section 1.1):
• In 2014, Mead & Hunt developed an Encroachment White Paper, which considered criteria from ULDC, FEMA, and USACE. This white paper was used as a basis for the analysis and reporting of encroachments, as supported by this effort. The white paper is documented in (SAFCA, Sacramento FEMA Certification White Paper for Addressing Encroachments, 2014). • In 2015, Mead & Hunt reported on encroachments, penetrations, floodwalls, retaining walls, closure structures, wind setup and wave runup analysis, and O&M manual review as part of SAFCA’s previous FEMA Certification efforts for multiple levee systems, of which ASLS was included. That effort is documented in our certification report (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015). • A visual inspection of the ASLS was conducted in September, October, and November 2024, and database information for the levee encroachments, penetrations, floodwalls, retaining walls, and closure structures was assessed and revised accordingly. As discussed in this report, applicable analyses and assessments were conducted.
• Review of available data and reports, field observations, supplemental inspection reports, revised design water surface elevation data, and updated top-of-levee surveys. • Review of the pipe condition inspection programs with facility owners, including:
o County of Sacramento, Department of Water Resources – Drainage o City of Sacramento, Department of Utilities – Stormwater and Sewer o City Of Sacramento, Department of Utilities – Water
o Sac Sewer (Sacramento Regional Sanitation District/Sacramento Area Sewer District) o PG&E natural gas
o California State University, Sacramento
o California Department of Transportation
• Review of annual trial exercise of emergency closure gate programs with the City of Sacramento and County of Sacramento stormwater operations staff.
• Penetration assessment screening and analysis completed as part of this certification effort included using the previous methodology documented in (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015) and is further documented in Appendix A. The updated assessment is based upon current conditions. • Floodwalls, retaining walls, and closure structures were also assessed and analyzed as part of this certification process, as discussed in this report. • Updated the wind-wave analysis to include the most current wind speed data, incorporated new topography provided by MBK, included the 2024 top-of-levee survey data from PSOMAS, and updated the methodology for accuracy.
• Review of the annual trial exercise of the City of Sacramento’s stoplog trial closures with the City of Sacramento stormwater operations staff, including a site visit. • Review and evaluation of whether the ASLS meets ULDC requirements as it pertains to ULDC Sections 7.12 – Encroachments, 7.13 – Penetrations, 7.14 – Closure Structures, 7.17 – Wind Setup and Wave Runup, and 7.20 – Operations and Maintenance Manuals. All other ULDC criteria is being evaluated by others.
3 • This report is not intended to be a full compilation of background information and evaluations for ULDC criteria. It is intended to serve as a supplement to the previously documented Mead & Hunt analyses and reports mentioned previously.

1.3 Report Organization
This report is divided into eight sections. Section 1 is an introductory section that describes the background, need, scope, and organization of this report. Sections 2 through 6 address the five ULDC criteria for which Mead & Hunt is responsible (listed in Section 1.1) and contain objectives, criteria, assumptions, study methodology, and results of the study for each component as they pertain to ULDC Criteria for modifications to these responsible areas. Section 7 summarizes the results of this report.

Section 8 lists the applicable References.
4 2.1 Purpose
Levee encroachments must comply with DWR ULDC encroachment criteria, as well as United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) criteria for Periodic Inspections under PL 84-99, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) criteria, and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) Title 23 requirements. The purpose of the levee encroachment analysis conducted as part of this effort was to assess updated and supplemental information of existing encroachments for compliance with ULDC and other regulatory criteria. Mead & Hunt’s previous analyses in 2014 and 2015 for ASLS informed this effort and established the foundation for these criteria.

2.2 Criteria
Levee encroachments were evaluated on the basis of four sources of criteria – ULDC (the main focus of this report), FEMA, USACE, and CVFPB – which are elaborated upon below. The different criteria were consolidated in an Encroachment White Paper (SAFCA, Sacramento FEMA Certification White Paper for Addressing Encroachments, 2014).

2.2.1 ULDC Criteria
Section 7.12 of the ULDC addresses levee encroachments, excluding penetrations, floodwalls, retaining walls, closure structures, and levee vegetation. ULDC requires encroachment analysis to consider the following when rendering this opinion: type, age, condition, performance history of the encroachment, impacts on the levee/floodwall structural integrity, impacts on the hydraulic effect on the channel and floodway, and impacts on the operation and maintenance of the levee/floodwall. Further, a hazard assessment needs to be performed for each existing encroachment, and encroachments found to have a high hazard require a full engineering evaluation to demonstrate whether or not the hazard is acceptable.

2.2.2 USACE Criteria
USACE criteria requires that anything over, under, or through the levee and within the project easement must have a valid CVFPB permit, and a No Objection Letter issued by the USACE must be annotated in project as-built drawings or noted in the O&M manual. USACE classifies levees as “Acceptable,” “Minimally Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” based on the condition of encroachments and other factors. The inspection criteria are found in a document titled USACE Levee Inspection Checklist, provided in Exhibit 2 of the Mead & Hunt Certification Report (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015). A levee is deemed unacceptable from the encroachment perspective if the encroachments are likely to inhibit operations and maintenance, emergency operations, or negatively impact the integrity of the levee. Levees are deemed minimally acceptable when trash, debris, unauthorized farming activity, structures, excavations, or other obstructions are present or inappropriate activities are noted for correction but will not inhibit operations and maintenance or emergency operations.
5 2.2.3 CVFPB Criteria
The California regulations for levee and floodway encroachments are set forth in Title 23, which describes the CVFPB's duties for enforcement. Title 23 provides standards for the construction, maintenance, and protection of adopted flood control plans, which covers encroachments.

2.2.4 FEMA Criteria
Prior to the preparation of this report, Mead & Hunt prepared a white paper (SAFCA, Sacramento FEMA Certification White Paper for Addressing Encroachments, 2014) that included criteria based upon FEMA and ULDC Criteria to be adopted for the classification of encroachments to address FEMA’s maintenance criteria, in accordance with 44 CFR 65.10(d). The white paper describes our approach to evaluation, which is intended to determine the likelihood of identified encroachments to inhibit operations and maintenance, emergency operations, or negatively impact the integrity of the levee. The Levee Maintenance Agencies (LMAs) and the CVFPB were provided the opportunity to review the approach. The LMAs were consulted to obtain input on how the various features could potentially impair maintenance and operations. The potential for an encroachment to negatively impact the levee system integrity was judged based on technical evaluations and compliance with criteria that are set forth to manage risk. Upon identification of encroachments that contribute to risk, Mead & Hunt classified encroachments as:
• Significant Threat to Levee Integrity (Category 1A)
o Imminent threat to integrity of the levee; must be remediated before levee certification.
• Low Hazard (Category 1B)
o Lesser threat to the integrity of the levee; impedes operation and maintenance; must be fixed or removed within three years of levee certification • Non-Compliant (Category 2)
o Does not comply with ULDC; must be fixed or removed within ten years of levee certification.

The Encroachment White Paper, reviewed by SAFCA’s previous Board of Senior Consultants (BOSC) is provided in (SAFCA, Sacramento FEMA Certification White Paper for Addressing Encroachments, 2014). Flowcharts showing the analysis pathways for major encroachment categories are provided in Exhibit 2 of the Mead & Hunt Certification Report.

2.3 Methodology
A two-step approach was adopted for the encroachment analysis, which is described in detail in our previous efforts (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015) and the Encroachment White Paper (SAFCA, Sacramento FEMA Certification White Paper for Addressing Encroachments, 2014). As part of this current due diligence review, there were no modifications to the previous methodology described in the documents referenced in this section. Due to the voluminous nature of this material, that information was not reproduced here. Penetrations and associated structures, floodwalls, retaining walls, and closure structures were analyzed based on their own specific criteria in Sections 3 and 4, as documented in this report.
6 2.4 Results
A field investigation conducted in September, October, and November 2024 (by Mead & Hunt) verified encroachment data. The total number of encroachments for this levee system is 1,413 (of which 171 are linear encroachments). This does not include any penetrations or associated structures, closure structures, significant retaining walls, or floodwalls (reported separately in Sections 3 and 4 of this report). Exhibit 2A of this report shows a map summary of all ASLS encroachments. Additionally, Exhibits 3A1 and 3A2 show a table summary of all ASLS encroachments (non-linear) and linear encroachments, respectively. During the 2024 field investigations and review of existing data, no high-risk encroachments were flagged for ASLS by Mead & Hunt. This was further confirmed by MBK.

No high-risk encroachments that would fall within the 1A, 1B, or 2 categories outlined in Section 2.2.4 were found, and no further engineering evaluations were required that would alter the risk assessment findings provided previously.

2.5 Due Diligence Review; ULDC and FEMA Compliance
In 2013 and 2014, SAFCA performed an inventory of encroachments along the ASLS (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015). A hazard assessment of the encroachments was performed using established criteria in the encroachment white paper (SAFCA, Sacramento FEMA Certification White Paper for Addressing Encroachments, 2014). None of the encroachments were considered to be high-risk, as determined by MBK in SAFCA’s 2016 engineer’s report (SAFCA Adequate Progress Towards an Urban Level of Flood Protection, 2016).

During this due diligence review, encroachment data was verified, and a field investigation was conducted in September, October, and November 2024. The total number of encroachments for this levee system is 1588, which does not include any penetrations or associated structures, floodwalls, retaining walls, or closure structures. Work completed during this process is consistent with previous evaluation methodology.

No high-risk encroachments that would fall within the 1A, 1B, or 2 categories, outlined in Section 2.2.4, were found and no further engineering evaluations were required that would alter the risk assessment findings provided previously (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015). MBK has determined that there are no highhazard encroachments that would preclude ULDC/FEMA certification, but an encroachment remediation plan to be prepared by MBK will address non-compliant and non-permitted encroachments to comply with the ULDC. In summary, there are no high-risk encroachments along the ASLS. Mead & Hunt has confirmed with MBK that the ASLS is in compliance with ULDC Section 7.12 criteria for encroachments and FEMA 44 CFR 65.10(d) for levee maintenance.
7 This section discusses the purpose, criteria, methodology, and results of penetration-specific requirements under ULDC and FEMA that were completed during this due diligence review.

3.1 Purpose
The purpose of the levee penetrations evaluation conducted as part of this effort was to assess the current conditions (based on new design water surface elevation data, updated documentation, and current conditions) and modifications to existing levee penetrations since previous analyses were conducted and reported in 2015, for compliance with ULDC and FEMA criteria.

3.2 Criteria
The ULDC, 7.13 provides criteria for assessment of existing penetrations for urban levee finding, which states that the “civil engineer needs to assess existing penetrations and render an opinion as to their impact on the reliable performance of the levee/floodwall for the full range of loading up to the hydraulic top of levee (HTOL).”
Further, FEMA 44 CFR 65.10(b)(2) provides criteria for the assessment of closure structures. Gravity drain penetrations along the levee that provide hydraulic connectivity between the flooding source and the levee-impacted area are considered openings that require compliant closure structures. The FEMA criteria states: “All openings must be provided with closure devices that are structural parts of the system during operation and design according to sound engineering practices.” The following evaluation criteria were identified for penetrations:
1) Structural strength – Pipes designed to be adequate to withstand loads of overlying fill or stresses applied by traffic. Earth loads are to be determined as outlined in EM 1110-2-2902. 2) Joint flexibility – Joints should be flexible enough to adjust under expected settlement and stretching of pipe.
3) Emergency closure – Pipes open to the waterway must have provisions for emergency closure in the event of inoperative flap valves on the riverside end. 4) Condition of the pipeline – Pipes are required to be in good condition. Currently, no explicit guidance exists for the condition assessment of pipelines. In accordance with the ULDC, the exposed portions of pipe and culvert penetrations need to be visually inspected at least annually.

At minimum 5-year intervals, the interiors of all pipes and culvert penetrations need to be visually inspected and/or pressure tested. Alternatively, corrosion assessment can be completed using nondestructive means such as ultrasonic or electrical conductivity measurements. EM 1110-2- 2902 has been updated since the previous assessment to provide guidance for inspections, condition assessments, and prioritizing mitigation plans.

Items 1) and 2) were evaluated as part of the penetration analysis, while items 3) and 4) were evaluated as part of the condition assessment process.
8 3.3 Methodology
A phased approach was adopted for the penetration analysis, which is described in detail in our previous efforts (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015). Screening for potential high-hazard penetrations was conducted, and penetrations flagged during the screening were subjected to a full engineering evaluation to make a final determination of acceptability based on risk. The additional engineering evaluation of penetrations for the ASLS is described in Appendix A of this report. Additionally, a technical memorandum (TM) has been prepared and is included in Appendix B to discuss exceptions for penetrations in the ASLS and the respective work plans for addressing these exceptions. As part of this current due diligence review, there were no modifications to the previous methodology described in the documents referenced in this section.

Due to the voluminous nature of this material, that information was not reproduced here.

3.4 Results
During this due diligence review, 266 penetrations were reviewed, screened, and analyzed, as appropriate and the database was updated based upon previous methodology. Of these penetrations, the 24 gravity drain penetrations that provide hydraulic connectivity between the flooding source and the levee-impacted area were found to have compliant closure structures. A map summary and table summary of the penetrations and associated structures are included in this report as Exhibits 2B and 3B, respectively. That analysis was completed during this due diligence review. Additional supporting documentation used for screening and analysis is provided in Appendix D.

One additional pipe along the Sacramento River left bank that runs parallel to the line of protection was reviewed for potential impacts to flood protection. This City of Sacramento 42-inch water transmission main parallels the line of protection, running along Jibboom Street and the bike trail between Railyards Blvd and the I Street Bridge, Station 1025+00 to 1037+00. The corridor in this area is high ground, above the minimum top of levee (MTOL), with no appreciable levee embankment. The transmission main was recently field located by the USACE for the SREL Contract 4 design and is parallel to and under the bike trail between Stations 1029+00 and 1036+00. The City of Sacramento has a rigorous pipe integrity testing and inspection program, where water transmission mains are tested on a three-year cycle. The pipe is setback from the riverbank more than 30 feet at its closest point. A potential failure mode of pipe integrity breach was determined to be not of significant risk due to the high ground on either side of the pipe alignment, and the appreciable setback from the riverbank.

For penetrations within the ASLS that were determined (during the screening process) to require a full engineering evaluation to make a final determination of acceptability based on risk, their evaluation is summarized in Appendix A of this report. After evaluation, if an exception to ULDC is required for any of the above-referenced criteria, that risk assessment and any work plan are discussed in the TM in Appendix B.

3.5 Due Diligence Review; ULDC and FEMA Compliance
Mead & Hunt has updated the database, verified existing information, screened and flagged penetrations requiring engineering evaluation, and completed those additional evaluations. The evaluation includes some exceptions to ULDC based upon corresponding risk considerations and work plan development for 9 certain exceptions.

Mead & Hunt has determined that the ASLS compliance with ULDC Section 7.13 and FEMA 44 CFR

65.10(b)(2) criteria for penetrations is acceptable with the exceptions discussed in Appendix B and has concluded that there are no anticipated impacts to the reliability of the ASLS’s performance during its full range of loading to the HTOL.
10 4.1 Purpose
The purpose of the evaluation conducted as part of this effort was to assess the existing levee floodwalls, retaining walls, and closure structures for compliance with ULDC and FEMA criteria. The available drawings of the floodwalls and closure structures within the ASLS are provided in Appendix D, and a summary map and table of the floodwalls, retaining walls, and closure structures are shown in Exhibits 2C and 3C, respectively.

4.2 Criteria
The floodwall, retaining wall, and closure structure strength and stability analysis was based on the same criteria used in our previous certification report (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015). The criteria for floodwalls and other hydraulic retaining walls are outlined in EM 1110-2-2502. The following ULDC Section 7.14 criteria was considered for the referenced closure structures:

Current USACE design guidance for special features such as floodwalls, retaining walls, and closure structures is to be followed. This information is included in EM 1110-2-1913, EM 1110-2- 2502, EC 1110-2-6067, and ETL 1110-2-571.
1 Because design considerations for floodwalls are
still evolving since the 2005 New Orleans flood, caution should be used when designing and assessing these structures. All global slope stability and embankment through-seepage and underseepage safety criteria requirements are applicable for floodwalls, retaining walls, and closure structures on levees. In addition, the civil engineer must evaluate and address the potential for the floodwall to induce settlement in the levee.

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

Closure structures need to be tested at least once a year before the flood season so that crews responsible for implementing the structures are familiar with their operation and to provide assurance that all parts are present and in working order.

FEMA 44 CFR 65.10(b)(2) provides criteria for the assessment of closure structure facilities that provide hydraulic connectivity between the flooding source and the levee-impacted area. The FEMA criteria states: “All openings must be provided with closure devices that are structural parts of the system during operation and design according to sound engineering practices.” Closure structures for gravity penetrations are covered under the penetration evaluation, as outlined in Section 3.3 criteria for emergency closures.
1 The EC and ETL have expired and the EM 1110-2-2502, Floodwalls and other Hydraulic Retaining Structures, has been updated since the ULDC publication.
11 4.3 Methodology
The floodwall, retaining wall, and closure structure analysis followed the same methodology used in our previous certification report (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015). Available design details were obtained from facility owners for floodwalls and significant retaining walls. Updated plans were provided to Mead & Hunt and reviewed/incorporated.

The on-site condition assessment for each floodwall, retaining wall, and closure structure facility was completed separately. The closure structure removable components are stored onsite. A visual inspection of materials was conducted. The annual trial closures of facilities within the ASLS were determined to require no significant mobilization. Closure structures for gravity penetrations are covered under the penetration evaluation, as outlined in Section 3.3 criteria for emergency closures, including verification of annual trial closures.

Retaining walls within the zone of influence of the levees were identified through field investigations and drawing reviews. The initial screening indicated that undrained reinforced concrete retaining walls three (3) feet or less in retained height and in sound condition do not create a significant risk to levee stability.

Landside retaining walls beyond 10 feet from the projected toe of the levee slope were excluded from the structural stability analysis unless determined to influence the stability of the maintenance zone at the landside toe of the levee.

4.4 Results
As part of this due diligence review, Mead & Hunt reviewed previous information, as-builts, and modified plans for the ASLS floodwalls, closure structures, and retaining walls as part of our analysis. For our condition assessments of floodwalls, closure structures, and retaining walls, a visual inspection (field investigation) took place in September, October, and November 2024. Annual trials of the closure structure assemblies and the gravity penetration emergency isolation valves were reviewed with the owners and the satisfactory completion of the most current trials was confirmed by the facility owners.

The primary floodwalls within the ASLS are located along the Sacramento River East Levee (SREL) in the Old Sacramento and Riverwalk Promenade area upstream and downstream of the Tower Bridge (Station 1040+50 to 1082+40), and the results are discussed further below. At Sutter’s Landing (Bell Marine site), an old concrete retaining/floodwall fronting the river forms the line of protection between Stations 1140+60 and 1142+60. Although the ground landside of the Sutter’s Landing floodwall is lower than the upstream and downstream levees, the floodwall was previously determined as not required for flood protection as the areas landward are higher than the MTOL. 23 The current assessment is that the
Design Water Surface Elevations (DWSE) is lower than the ground at landside of existing Sutter’s Landing wall, and the wall is not required to perform as the line of protection. One additional floodwall was 2 Replacement of the Existing Floodwall at Lower American River, River Mile 2.7 Alternative Analysis, MBK Engineers, March 27, 2007.
3 WRDA 1996/1999 Remaining Sites, Engineering Evaluation of No Action Sites, L1, L3, L5, L13, R2, R9, RM2.7L and RM 3.15L, Technical Memorandum USACE, April 2014
12 located along the SREL at the downstream limits near the interface of the Beach Stone Lake North levee within the Cliff’s Marina site, between Stations 1766+00 and 1770+50. This is a 12-inch thick, cast-inplace concrete wall of recent construction and with less than 2-foot height, located at waterside of the levee crown and abuts against the Cliffs Marina stoplog closure. The wall is primarily a retaining feature for the levee crown with minimal projection above grade. The wall was previously assessed and found satisfactory, and our 2024 field inspection found no defects.

The Sacramento riverfront floodwall was re-evaluated, as the conditions have been significantly altered since our 2015 report. The floodwalls upstream of J Street (Station 1047+00) are conventional T walls setback from the riverbank with a bike trail bench waterside of the wall and backed by high ground above the MTOL. This reach of floodwall was previously evaluated and found to be stable and meeting criteria.

Our latest visual assessment found no significant deterioration.

The Old Sacramento (downstream of Station 1047+00) and Riverwalk Promenade floodwalls are generally short reinforced concrete parapets above the seawalls, and the Old Sacramento wall contains numerous pedestrian openings fitted with closures. At several locations, the Old Sacramento reinforced concrete parapet walls have been interrupted to provide access to waterside docks, with timber walls constructed around the perimeter of the docks used to maintain the continuity of the line of protection.

The Riverwalk Promenade floodwalls are backed by a wide, thick concrete walkway landward of the floodwall and project less than 6 inches above the adjacent landside grade. This reach of floodwall south of the Tower Bridge was previously evaluated and in our recent inspection, it was found to be stable, meeting criteria, and in good condition.

The Old Sacramento reach of floodwall (upstream of the Tower Bridge) was previously found to be stable with some concrete defects (cracking and spalling). The area has received a significant renovation since the 2015 inspection, with concrete repairs performed by the City prior to and during the 2018 renovation effort that removed timber cladding obscuring visibility. A new concrete fill walkway has been placed landward of the wall to replace the wooden boardwalk. Although previous evaluations identified floodwalls within this reach that included timber barriers routed through buildings supported by wooden docks, recent building code issues have been identified that, in the opinion of the review team, would preclude reliance upon these barriers. As a result, only the floodwall reaches that are founded on seawalls or stable concrete docks are considered effective.

The Sacramento riverfront floodwalls are generally founded on large, anchored concrete gravity retaining walls up to approximately 20 feet in height. A section of the Riverwalk seawall downstream of the Tower Bridge was replaced in 1987 with an anchored sheetpile and a concrete cap. The seawalls were reinforced primarily through anchorage in various efforts from 1983 to 1995, drawings are enclosed in Appendix D. The City visually inspects the seawall condition on an annual basis and after significant floods. Potential flood damage is investigated and evaluated by the USACE. An ongoing investigation is being conducted by the USACE for a PL84-99 claim due to the development of a new crack near station 1050+15. The crack was inspected by Mead & Hunt and found to be tight with no indication of displacement. The condition is subject to ongoing monitoring by the City and USACE and any repairs deemed necessary will be completed by the USACE.
13 The as-built survey for the Old Sacramento floodwalls, including closure structures, is included in Appendix D. The closure structures for gravity penetrations are covered under the penetration evaluation, as outlined in the Section 3.3 criteria for emergency closures, including verification of annual trial closures.

The closure structures within the ASLS are at the following locations:
• Sacramento River East Levee within Old Sacramento, between Station 1056+30 and 1043+50 (6 pedestrian openings).
• Sacramento River East Levee at Cliffs Marina, Station 1770+50 to 1772+50 (Stoplog structure with removable posts)
The Cliff’s Marina stoplog was constructed by the USACE to provide a uniform level of protection along the Sacramento River east levee. Drawings are enclosed in Appendix D. The structure retains less than 2 feet of water at the MTOL4. An onsite storage container is utilized by DWR MA9 to store removable components, and no special equipment is required for the installation. The USACE has prepared an O&M supplement that covers this stoplog facility installation. The facility has been recently assembled to verify facility updates made by the USACE to improve ease of installation.

The Old Sacramento closures are timber stop logs founded on the underlying seawall. The stoplogs are stored onsite adjacent to each closure and manually installed without the need for special equipment and tools. The closures were reviewed in the field with the City and found to be in good condition.

The Old Sacramento floodwall was found to have a gap between approximate stations 1054+00 and 1056+00. Although previous evaluations identified floodwalls within this reach that included timber barriers routed through buildings, recent building code issues have been identified that, in the opinion of the review team, would preclude reliance upon these barriers. The floodwall in this reach is within the freeboard and less than 0.5 feet below the MTOL, and the team’s recommendation is to classify this reach as a closure that will be sandbagged in the event of a significant flood event.

The Old Sacramento closure structures are operated and maintained by the City of Sacramento Department of Utilities. Trial closures are conducted annually prior to the flood season.

A total of 152 retaining walls were identified within the zone of influence of the ASLS levees. A majority of these retaining walls are short retaining walls at private property lines and are evaluated as encroachments and not found to be at significant risk to the levee stability. A number of retaining walls were removed as part of the SREL Contracts 1 and 2 and have been removed from the database. New retaining walls have been constructed since the previous assessment and were evaluated at the following sites:
• Business 80 ARSL Station 1204+50 as part of the Caltrans bridge widening abutment (Permit 19620).
4 MTOL includes 3.5 feet of freeboard to account for wind setup and wave runup. 14 • City Sump 163, SREL Station 1027+80 – 5-foot-tall cast-in-place concrete wall landside of the overbuild of SREL to accommodate raised discharge pipes (Permit 19134). • City Sump 155, ARSL Station 1314 +50, 2-foot-tall, reinforced CMU at landside toe within the pump station yard (Permit 19577).

4.4.1 Analysis Results
No additional analyses were required for the ASLS floodwalls, closure structures, and retaining walls. The systems were found to comply with the standards and guidance as indicated in this report and during previous efforts (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015).

4.4.2 Condition Assessment Results
The Sacramento River East Levee floodwalls were field inspected in October and November 2024 and found to be well-maintained and in serviceable condition for their intended use. The retaining walls were also field inspected in September and October 2024, and the database was updated to include new, altered, and removed retaining walls. The walls requiring structural evaluation were found to be well-maintained and in serviceable condition for their intended use.

The closure structures within the Old Sacramento Floodwall system were field inspected in November 2024 and found to be acceptable for the intended use. The operations are guided by the City’s Emergency Response Plan (ERP), Chapter 7, a copy of which is included in Appendix 8 of our previous certification report (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015). The plan outlines the following: a) Flood Procedures; b) Floodgate Locations; c) Materials Required for Floodgate Closure; d) Floodgate Threshold Elevations; and e) an outline of the Annual Flood Preparedness Plan and Procedures. The approach to annual trial closures was reviewed with the City. Each fall, the items for stoplog closures are inventoried and inspected, and assemblies are completed.

4.5 Due Diligence Review; ULDC and FEMA Compliance
Mead & Hunt has determined that the ASLS complies with ULDC Section 7.14 and FEMA 44 CFR

65.10(b)(2) criteria for floodwalls, retaining walls, and closure structures, without exception. 15 5.1 Scope of Analysis
Because the updated analysis criteria and methodology for the wind setup and wave runup analysis are voluminous, it is fully contained in Appendix C and not reproduced here, only summarized.

ULDC 7.17 requires a wind-wave analysis. The wind setup and wave runup distances must be computed and added to the median 200-year still water surface elevation, and the resultant shall be no more than the required MTOL. Additionally, wind setup and wave runup must be computed to support the analysis of erosion and overtopping impacts.

The formation and magnitude of wind-generated waves against shoreline structures are controlled by the physical conditions present on and near the shore, such as the slope and roughness of the structure, wind speed, and the distance over which wind blows (fetch length). Evaluations were documented in the Wind Wave Analysis, and the wind setup and the runup for the 2 percent exceedance wave (wave runup, which is exceeded by 2 percent of waves on average) were determined. The analyses were performed at the location on the levees expected to generate the most significant wind setup and wave runup.

5.2 Results
Wind and wave analysis for the ARS was completed in 2015 and updated in 2024 in accordance with the requirements of ULDC 7.17. The Automated Coastal Engineering System (ACES) Version 4.03 model within the Coastal Engineering Design and Analysis System (CEDAS) software program, based on the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center’s Shore Protection Manual, was the primary tool for calculating wind setup and wave runup. Design wind speed with a return period of 72.6 years and a duration of two (2) minutes was used in accordance with ULDC 7.17. Results in Appendix C indicate that the maximum combined wind setup and wave runup is 3.0 feet or less, with the exception of Sites 41 and 42, along the Sacramento River East Levee reach downstream of the Freeport Regional Water Intake Facility, Station 1665+00 and downstream. The maximum wind setup plus wave runup in this reach of the SREL downstream of Station 1665+00 is 3.5 feet, and the available still water freeboard in this reach exceeds 3.5 feet. The effects of wind setup and wave runup on the MTOL and erosion should be considered in MBK’s Engineer’s Report, sections for ULDC 7.2 and ULDC 7.10, respectively.

5.3 Due Diligence Review and ULDC Compliance
Mead & Hunt has updated the previous wind setup and wave runup analysis for the ASLS utilizing the most applicable and current data available for wind speed, terrain, and water surface elevation, as shown in Appendix D. Mead & Hunt has determined that the ASLS is in compliance with ULDC Section 7.17 criteria for wind setup and wave runup.
16 6.1 Purpose
The purpose of the O&M Manual review was to ensure existing O&M manuals comply with ULDC and FEMA requirements and provide any additional reviews needed for elements not previously included.

This current effort does not trigger any additional USACE-approved O&M manual reviews.

ARFCD, City of Sacramento, and DWR MA-9 maintain the levees in the study area. The ARFCD maintains the American River south (left bank) levee and the Sacramento River east (left bank) levee from the confluence at Station 1000+00 downstream to Station 1020+85 (approximately 400 linear feet downstream of the City of Sacramento Water Intake. The City of Sacramento maintains the levee downstream to Station 1020+85 (immediately downstream of Sutterville Road. DWR maintains the remainder of the Sacramento River east levee within the study area, downstream of Station 1020+85.

The governing O&M manuals are those developed by USACE. The levee systems are covered by three supplements to the standard O&M manual for the Sacramento River Flood Control Project:
• Sacramento River Flood Control Project, Unit No. 118 – Part No. 1. East Levee of Sacramento River from American River to Tower Bridge and South Levee of American River 0.8 miles above Mayhew Drain Downstream to Sacramento River, revised 29 December 2016 • Sacramento River Flood Control Project, Unit No. 117 East Levee Sacramento River Through the City of Sacramento from Tower Bridge to Sutterville Road, revised 29 December 2016; and • Sacramento River Flood Control Project, Unit No. 115 East Levee of Sacramento River from Sutterville Road to North Boundary of Reclamation District No. 744, revised 29 December 2016 The update addressed revisions to these supplemental manuals and the details of the most recent levee remediation contracts.

The review of the closure structure operations by the City of Sacramento and DWR MA-9 are summarized in Section 4.

The City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, California State University-Sacramento, and California Department of Transportation maintain equipment operation and maintenance manuals at each pump station. Mead & Hunt also compiled the pump operational data and setpoints for the drainage pump stations in ASLS for review.

6.2 Criteria
ULDC requires that levee systems must have an O&M manual consistent with USACE requirements. All facilities providing the necessary urban level of flood protection must be operated and maintained by an identified public agency. Where the levee system has more than one agency with O&M responsibilities, they are required to coordinate efforts. FEMA 44 CFR 65.10(c) provides criteria for operations plans, and part (d) provides criteria for levee system maintenance plans. 17 6.3 Results
The O&M manuals and operating procedures were found to cover all system components: the levee system, closure structures, and the pump stations. Each of these three components is operated by different public agencies with the authority and resources to do so. As there is little overlap in O&M between these entities, minimal coordination is necessary; however, each entity was found to understand its role in system operation.

The O&M manual and operating procedures for the pump stations were reviewed with the City and County of Sacramento and found to accurately represent the facility operations and maintenance needs.

Outreach to obtain copies of the O&M data for the California State University-Sacramento and California Department of Transportation is being conducted.

6.4 Due Diligence Review and ULDC Compliance
Mead & Hunt has determined that the ASLS is in compliance with ULDC Section 7.20 criteria for O&M manuals, as well as FEMA 44 CFR 65.10 (c) for operation plans for closure structures and pump stations and 65.10(d) for levee system maintenance plans.
18 Based on our due diligence activities on the ASLS, Mead & Hunt has concluded that the overall condition of the ASLS has not significantly changed since the ULDC and FEMA certification efforts documented in (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015). It is our professional opinion that ASLS meets ULDC requirements for Sections 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.17, and 7.20 for Encroachments, Penetrations, Floodwalls, Retaining Walls, and Closure Structures, Wind Setup and Wave Runup, and O&M Manuals, respectively – pending mitigation plan items discussed in the Penetration Exceptions Work Plan TM in Appendix B. It is also our professional opinion that ASLS meets FEMA criteria in accordance with 44 CFR 65.10(b)(2) for the gravity drain penetrations and Old Sacramento closure structures. Other conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the ASLS are discussed below.

7.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions have been made for each area covered in this report.

7.1.1 Encroachments
The previous ULDC and FEMA certification efforts conducted are covered in our prior report (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015), and no high-risk encroachments were flagged by Mead & Hunt (confirmed by MBK). ASLS is determined to be in compliance with ULDC criteria Section 7.12.

7.1.2 Penetrations
The previous ULDC and FEMA certification efforts conducted are covered in our prior report (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015), and all current efforts are discussed in this report. ASLS is determined to be in compliance with ULDC criteria Section 7.13, EM 1110-2-1913, and FEMA criteria in accordance with 44 CFR 65.10(b)(2), with ULDC exceptions. The mitigation plan for finalizing the penetration documentation is described in Appendix B.

7.1.3 Floodwalls, Retaining Walls, and Closure Structures The previous ULDC and FEMA certification efforts conducted are covered in our prior report (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015), and current efforts are discussed in this report. ASLS is determined to be in compliance with ULDC criteria Section 7.14 and FEMA criteria in accordance with 44 CFR

65.10(b)(2).

7.1.4 Wind Setup and Wave Runup
The previous ULDC and FEMA certification efforts conducted are covered in our prior report (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015), and current efforts are discussed in this report. ASLS is determined to be in compliance with ULDC criteria Section 7.17.

7.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Manuals
The previous ULDC and FEMA certification efforts conducted are covered in our prior report (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015), and all current efforts are discussed in this report. ASLS is determined to be in compliance with ULDC criteria Section 7.20.
19 7.2 Recommendations
Below is a list of Mead & Hunt’s recommendations for the ASLS. 1) The encroachments, penetrations, floodwalls, retaining walls, and closure structures either discussed in this report or previously reported (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2015) in the ASLS should continue to be maintained and kept in good operating condition, monitored, and inspected per ULDC requirements and applicable O&M manuals.
2) Aging infrastructure, especially penetrations, should be routinely evaluated for condition assessment based on future inspections. The local maintaining agency should coordinate with owners of encroachments to replace and update as required to maintain the performance of the ASLS with assistance from the CVFPB, if necessary.
3) The mitigation plans for ULDC exceptions, described in Appendix B, should be carried out. 4) The ASLS should continue to be operated and maintained in accordance with the approved O&M manuals.

7.3 Limitations
Mead & Hunt’s services were performed in a manner consistent with the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions.

No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the completion of the work supporting this ULDC/FEMA Due Diligence Report. Our professional services were limited to supporting engineering opinions needed to address ULDC criteria for encroachments, penetrations, floodwalls and closure structures, wind setup and wave runup, and O&M manuals.

Our conclusions regarding the condition and safety of the ASLS, related facilities, and their conformance to ULDC criteria are not stated as a guarantee, but they do represent our best professional judgment.

This judgment must be recognized as affected to a certain degree by the practical limitations that affect all evaluations of constructed water-retention structures, relative principally to the approximate knowledge of the condition and properties of the foundation materials and existing structures.

The conclusions we present in this ULDC/FEMA Due Diligence Report are based in part upon the data obtained from limited correspondence, reports, surveys, instrumentation, testing, and surface visual observations. Actual conditions may escape detection by reporting, surveying, monitoring, testing, and visual inspection/observation and may be unknowingly different from the conditions described in this report. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until the levees experience high water conditions or when further tests and evaluations are performed. If variations from the described conditions are encountered, additional investigations and assessments of the levee condition and performance may need to be conducted. It may be necessary to revise the conclusions and recommendations described herein and/or undertake additional remediation measures.

All conclusions and recommendations are based on the data and limitations described above, but they are also based on this specific snapshot in time, assuming that proper inspection, maintenance, repair, and replacement by utility owners and enforcement of the condition requirements of the permits by the CVFPB. Special attention should be paid to documenting the performance and condition of penetrations that are anticipated to be at the end of their useful life. 20 Based on our due diligence activities on the ASLS, Mead & Hunt completed this report using the following references.
21 California Department of Water Resources. (2012). Urban Levee Design Criteria. Sacramento, CA:

FloodSafe California.

MBK Engineers. (2007, March 27). Replacement of the Existing Floodwall at Lower American River, River Mile 2.7 Alternative Analysis. Sacramento: March 27.

MBK Engineers. (2024, November 6). Wind and Wave Analysis Inputs (Various). Sacramento.

Mead & Hunt, Inc. (2015). Sacramento Area Levee Recertification Project. Sacramento, CA.

SAFCA. (2014, July 21). Sacramento FEMA Certification White Paper for Addressing Encroachments.

Sacramento, CA.

SAFCA. (2016). Adequate Progress Towards an Urban Level of Flood Protection. Sacramento.

US Army Corps of Engineers. (2000, April 30). EM 1110-2-1913 Design and Construction of Levees.

Washington, DC.

US Army Corps of Engineers. (2020, December 31). Conduits, Pipes, and Culverts Associated with Dams and Levee Systems. Washington, DC.

US Army Corps of Engineers. (2022, August 1). EM 1110-2-2502 Floodwalls and Other Hydraulic Retaining Walls. Washington, DC.

USACE. (2014, April). WRDA 1996/1999 Remaining Sites, Engineering Evaluation of No Action Sites, L1, L3, L5, L13, R2, R9, RM2.7L and RM3.15L Technical Memorandum.

EXHIBIT 1. SAFCA Levee Basin Map
§¨¦5 ·|}þ99
Dry Creek North Levee
Robla Creek South Levee
NEMDC East Levee
Arcade Creek North Levee
Arcade Creek South Levee
NEMDC East Levee
American River North Levee
American River
South Levee
Sacramento River East Levee
§¨¦80
£¤50
)*+,-80
Dry
Creek
Arcade Creek
NEMDC
American River
Sa c r amento
Ri
v
e
r
Sacramen
to
River
City
of
Sacramento
City of
West Sacramento
§¨¦5
§¨¦80
Beach Lake /
Morrison Creek North Levee
Morrison
Creek
·|}þ99
Magpie Creek Diversion Channel
NEMDC
West Levee
PGCC
West Levee
NCC
South Levee
Sacramento River
East Levee
American River
North Levee
South Sacramento
Streams Group
Sacramento
County
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community ³
0 1.5 3
Miles
SAFCA Levee Certification
Levee Systems
Legend
Levee System
American North
American South
Dry Creek
Robla-Arcade
Natomas Basin
South Sacramento
Streams Group
(certified)
SAFCA Boundary
Major Highways
R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_Certification\GIS\maps\SAFCA Levee Certification basins 093022.mxd EXHIBIT 2A. Map Summary of Encroachments

EXHIBIT 2B. Map Summary of Penetrations and Associated
Structures
Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 1 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 2 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 3 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 4 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 5 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 6 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 7 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 8 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 9 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 10 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 11 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 12 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 13 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 14 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 15 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 16 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 17 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 18 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 19 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 20 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 21 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 22 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 23 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 24 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 25 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 26 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 27 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 28 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 29 of 30 Note: Sheets without penetrations are not included. Page 30 of 30 EXHIBIT 2C. Map Summary of Closure Structures, Retaining Walls, and Floodwalls
Note: Sheets without floodwalls, retaining walls,
and closure structures are not included.