2025-01648 Accepting SAFCA’s Urban Level of Flood Protection Reports (LR25-006) Part 11 — Sacramento City Council, October 21, 2025 (part 2 of 6)

Published maps include:
• Wagner et al. “Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, California. 1:250,000. Dated 1981. • Helley and Harwood. “Geologic Map of the late Cenozoic Deposits of the Sacramento Valley and Northern Sierran Foothills, California.” Sheet 1 of 5. 1:62,500. Dated 1985. • Gutierrez, C.I. “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Sacramento 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, California,” Scale 1:100,000. Dated 2011.

Wagner et al. provides a generalized regional context of the geologic units within and surrounding the study area. Guitierrez provides an updated version of the Helley and Hardwood map with more detail of the alluvial deposits within and surrounding the study area than Wagner et al. In general, the three maps present the geologic units consistently in the vicinity of the study area. Figure 2-1 shows the study area on the Wagner et al. geologic map.
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 9 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder

2.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY
A review of the local geology was performed using larger scale geologic maps covering the study area and comparing to the previously discussed regional geologic maps and existing subsurface data. Based on this review the local geology at depth is summarized in the sections below.

Surficial geology maps were previously prepared by Fugro William Lettis Associates (FWLA) of the study area on two separate maps.
• “Surficial Geologic Map of the American River Study Area.” Scale 1:20,000. Dated 2008. (FWLA, 2008)
• “Surficial Geologic Map of the NEMDC East Study Area.” Scale 1:20,000. Dated 2011. (FWLA, 2011)
The maps were prepared by reviewing existing geologic maps of the area, topography, and aerial photographs from 1937. The FWLA maps provide more detail geologic mapping within the study area.

Figure 2-2 shows Dry Creek, Arcade Creek, and NEMDC study are levee alignments plotted on the FWLA 2008 geology Map. Figure 2-3 presents the 2011 FWLA geology map for American River.

2.2.1 Surficial Geology
The major surficial geologic deposits within the FWLA are summarized below with the geologic unit symbols used by FWLA (2008 and 2011).
• Cultural Deposits (L, RR, ML): Historical Levee (L), Railroad Embankment (RR), Road Embankment (R), and Made Land (ML); made of artificial fill (Circa 1937 except Made Land); The Made Land is described as fill material of local and exotic sources, sand, silt, organics, garbage, etc. Historical levee deposits are generally mapped along Dry Creek, Arcade Creek, NEMDCEL, and American River. Railroad are mapped along the Union Pacific Railroad tracks that cross American River and parallel NEMDCEL. Made land is mapped sporadically along and within the American River.
• Borrow Pit (BP): area mapped where the existing fill was removed as noted from the 1937 aerial photographs. The material was likely used in levee fill construction. Borrow pits are mapped 24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 10 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
along NEMDC channel from the confluence with American River to north of the intersection with Arcade Creek. Borrow pit is also mapped along the waterside toe of ARNL. • Vernal Pool (Vp): seasonally submerged or saturated depression usually indicative of underlying hardpan. Mapped along much of DCSL and ACNL.
• Historical Overbank Deposits (Rob): sand, silt, and clay; deposited during high-stage water flow, overtopping channel banks. Mapped along ARNL.
• Historical Channel Deposits (Rch): well-sorted sands and fine gravels. Predominantly mapped along DCNL, Dry Creek floodway, ACNL, and ARNL.
o Historical Channel Bar Deposits (Rb): fine gravel, sand, and silt deposited at or along channel lateral margins. Mapped along portions of ARNL. o Historical Point Bar Deposits (Rpb): well-sorted sand with minor amounts of silt and clay.

Mapped along ARNL.
• Historical Cut-off Channel Deposits (Rcu): occur on insides of meander bends within the river channel. Mapped along portions of ARNL.
• Historical Distributary Channel Deposits (Rdc): sand, silt, clay and trace gravel. Mapped along ARNL.
• Historical Slough Deposits (Rsl): sand, silt, and clay, fining upward, low-energy channel deposits.

Mapped along minimal portions of ARNL.
• Holocene Alluvial Fan Deposits (Hfy): sand, silt, and clay. Mapped west of NEMDC at the intersections of Arcade Creek, Magpie Creek, Dry Creek, and American River. • Holocene Overflow Channel Deposits (Hofc): vertically stratified sand, silt, and clay in channels occupied when high-stage water overtops channel banks. Mapped north of and parallel to ARNL.
• Holocene Channel Deposits (Hch): sorted sands and silts, fining upward. Mapped along NEMDCEL, ACSL, and ARNL.
• Holocene Slough Basin Deposits (Hsb): sand, silt, and cay; fining upwards, ponded, low-energy channel deposits. Mapped along portions of ARNL.
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 11 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
• Holocene Slough Deposits (Hsl): Holocene slough deposits; sand, silt, and clay, fining upward, low-energy channel deposits. Mapped along portions of ARNL. • Holocene Basin Deposits (Hn): fine sand, silt, and clay. Mapped in the area of the historical Magpie Creek intersection with NEMDCEL and where the current Magpie Creek concrete-lined channel, I-80 bridges, and pump station intersect NEMDCEL. • Holocene Marsh Deposits (Hs): silt and clay, possibly with organic-rich beds; perennially or seasonally submerged. Mapped in the area of the historical Magpie Creek intersection with NEMDCEL and where the current Magpie Creek concrete-lined channel, I-80 bridges, and pump station intersect NEMDCEL; also mapped along minimal portion of ARNL. • Holocene Alluvial Deposits (Ha): undifferentiated; sand, silt, and minor lenses of gravel. Mapped along NEMDCEL south of Arcade Creek, along ACSL, and ARNL. • Modesto Formation (Qmu, Qml): Late Pleistocene (estimated 12,000 to 45,000 years of age) alluvium consisting of gravel, sand, silt, and clay; Upper Modesto (Qmu) typically unconsolidated and dense while the lower (Qml) typically unconsolidated to semi-consolidated and dense to very dense; very dense and/or semi-consolidated layers of the Modesto Formation may be identified as “hardpan.” Mapped along much of NEMDC, Arcade Creek, Dry Creek, and ARNL. • Riverbank Formation (Qru, Qrl): Mid-Pleistocene (estimated 130,000-450,000 years of age) alluvial fan consisting of gravel, sand, silt, and clay containing high-pedogenic silt and clay content and reddish hues reflective of its relative age; upper Riverbank Formation (Qru) typically semi-consolidated to consolidated while the lower (Qrl) typically consolidated and very dense; the very dense and/or consolidated layers of this formation locally referred to as “hardpan.” Mapped along significant portions of NEMDC, Dry Creek, and ARNL. • Turlock Lake Formation (Qtl): Early Pleistocene (estimated 450,000-600,000 years of age) alluvial fan consisting of well consolidated sand with some silt and minor gravel. Mapped along ARNL.

2.2.2 Generalized Near Surface Stratigraphy
Near surface stratigraphy (approximately upper 100 feet) was based on review and interpretation of geology publications, historical aerial photographs, current and historical topography, and existing subsurface data. The following provides a generalized stratigraphic description beginning from the bottom of the section along the study area levees.
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 12 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
The Early Pleistocene Turlock Lake Formation underlies the study area levees at depth. The Turlock Lake Formation is an alluvial fan deposit mapped as exposed at the surface generally to the east of Watt Avenue where it is topographically higher than the Riverbank Formation. The Turlock Lake Formation generally consists of weathered sands with some gravels and silts.

The Pleistocene Riverbank Formation overlies the Turlock Lake Formation. Generally, the Riverbank Formation is an alluvial fan deposit mapped as exposed at the surface generally west of Watt Avenue and laterally continuous across the study area. The Riverbank Formation was gradually incised by historical and active streams to create current day conditions. The Riverbank Formation consists of predominately stiff to indurated fine-grained soils with localized channels of sands and gravels.

The Late Pleistocene Modesto Formation overlies the Riverbank Formation and is generally local to the active and historical streams and American River within the study area. The Modesto Formation varies in thickness extending to approximately 30 feet and consists of a wide range of materials including soft to indurated fine-grained soils as well as gravels and cobbles along the American River. Additionally, this unit has been significantly eroded and is laterally discontinuous.

Holocene and Recent fluvial deposits overlay the Riverbank and Modesto Formations along the study area streams and American River. The areas are generally blanketed by fine-grained soils indicative of lower energy overbank and basin deposits. The fine-grained soils are dissected by channel and crevasse deposits generally consisting of soils with higher percentage of sand.

The study area levees were constructed on top of the native soils in the mid-1900’s generally using nonmodern-day conventional construction methods and testing. The exception is the Arcade Creek north levee, the NEMDC east levee north of Arcade Creek, and DCSL, which were constructed in the mid-1950s using USACE levee construction methods, and the DCNL, which was constructed in 1996, using modern compaction and testing methods. The levee embankments generally consist of silty and clayey sands.

SAFCA and USACE have constructed improvements to the levees to strengthen them over time.

2.3 SEISMOTECTONIC SETTING
The project is located in the Western United States (WUS) in the transform plate boundary region between the Pacific Plate (transitioning northwest) and the North American Plate. The site lies within the Sierra Nevada-Great Valley block (a.k.a., the Sierra Nevada microplate, or SNGV) which generally is thought to act as an independent block that has ‘tilted’ westward. The SNGV block is bounded on its 24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 13 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
eastern edge by a zone of faults known as the Walker Lane Belt, beyond which is the crustal extensional region of the Northern Basin and Range. Further afield in the northwestern portion of the state and extending northward to the pacific northwest, the Juan de Fuca plate is currently subducting below the North American plate in a region known as the Cascadia Subduction Zone (Humphreys and Coblentz, 2007; Unruh and Humphrey, 2003, 2017).

Regional stress buildup due to the northwestern movement of the Pacific Plate is primarily released through displacement along faults within the San Andreas fault system (e.g., San Andreas fault, Hayward fault, etc.) and to a lesser extent by displacements along faults within the Walker Lane Belt. Crustal extension of the Northern Basin and Range has led to the development of stress in the east-west direction and caused development of an extensive system of faults within the Northern Basin and Range (Fey and Humphreys, 2008; Field et al., 2013). These faults and other regional seismic sources are shown on Figures 3 and 4 of the GMPSM (Kleinfelder, 2023b) in Appendix B. 24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 14 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
3 GROUND MOTION HAZARD ANALYSIS
___________________________________________________________________________________

3.1 SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
Kleinfelder performed a site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) for three control points within the NAS analysis area as shown on Figure 1-1. A detailed description of the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis performed for this project is presented in the GMPSM (Kleinfelder, 2023a) in Appendix B.

To account for site effects and basin effects, the site parameters in Table 3.1 were evaluated. Because ground motions were evaluated at stiff soil condition, the Vs30 (average shear wave velocity in the upper 100 feet/30 meters) value was taken as 335 m/s. Z1.0 and Z2.5 were estimated utilizing the correlations developed for the NGA West 2 project, with justification per Peterson et al. 2019.

For the Ground Motion Models (GMMs), Kleinfelder used four of the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) West 2 relationships including Abrahamson et al. (2014), Boore et al. (2014), Chiou and Youngs (2014), and Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014) with equal weights applied for all crustal faults (e.g. reverse, strike-slip, normal) included in the fault model. The Idriss (2014) model has not been used as it is not valid for the VS30 used in our study and also for the larger distances used in this study (e.g. more than 150 km). The far-field subduction events (e.g. from Cascadia megathrust) were modeled using the relationships of Atkinson and Macias (2009), Abrahamson et al. (2016), and Zhao et al. (2006) with equal weights applied, except that for slab events the Atkinson and Macias (2009) relationship was excluded.

Spectral acceleration values are obtained by averaging the individual hazard results. These GMMs provide ‘mean’ (RotD50) values of ground motions associated with magnitude, distance, site soil conditions, and mechanism of faulting.

Table 3.1
Seismic Hazard Analysis Site Parameters
Point ID Latitude Longitude VS30
(m/s)
Z1.0
(km)
Z2.5
(km)
Arcade Creek 38.6668 -121.4762
Confluence 38.5982 -121.5087 335 0.428 1.55
American River East 38.5921 -121.3344
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 15 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder

3.1.1 Seismic Analysis Results
Kleinfelder calculated the probabilistic geometric mean Peak Horizontal Acceleration (PHA) values and deaggregation results at three points around the NAS analysis area (see Figure 1-1). The PHA has a 200- year return period and is listed in Table 3.2 along with the corresponding PHA value estimated from the Seismic Hazard Map in the 2015 ULE American River and NEMDC East GERs (URS, 2015a and 2015c).

Table 3.2
Probabilistic Peak Horizontal Acceleration and Controlling Earthquake Magnitude Point ID
PHA (g) Deaggregation Results
(KLF, 2023) (URS,
2015) MW Distance (km)
Arcade Creek 0.13 0.139 6.8 72
Confluence 0.14 0.146 6.8 67
American River East 0.12 0.126 6.8 81
The new PHA values calculated for each NAS analysis control point corresponding have small differences from the 2015 ULE. However, the 2015 ULE performed liquefaction analyses used an earthquake magnitude of 6.5, and Kleinfelder’s deaggregation produced a magnitude of 6.8. Hence, Kleinfelder performed liquefaction analyses using the original PHA values and the larger 2023 KLF magnitude. The old PHA values were used in the evaluation as the new values are not significantly different from the old values and are slightly conservative.
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 16 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
4 PREVIOUS EVALUATION
___________________________________________________________________________________

4.1 SUMMARY
The 2015 URS Geotechnical Evaluation Reports for the NEMDC East and American River North study areas (URS, 2015a and 2015c) performed Seismic Vulnerability Evaluations in accordance with the requirements developed for ULE. SPT-based liquefaction analyses were performed to identify layers at risk for liquefaction and non-liquefiable layers. These results were used where applicable to perform post-seismic stability and deformation analyses and classify the seismic vulnerability of each levee segment.

4.1.1 General
Kleinfelder reviewed the 2015 URS Seismic Vulnerability Analyses for the NAS levee segments as part of the Phase 1 Screening Analysis. Segments with High Vulnerability classifications and segments noted as non-liquefiable were not required to receive further analysis. Any segments noted as having both Low or Medium Vulnerability and containing at least one liquefiable layer required further review, which is discussed in Section 5 CURRENT EVALUATION, and are shaded gray in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1
Phase 1 – Seismic Vulnerability Results Screening
Segment ID Station Start Station End 2015 URS
Vulnerability
Contains
Liquefiable Layer
Additional
Analysis Required
American River – North Bank
AR-7 3000+00 3016+00 Low No No
AR-8 3016+00 3044+48 High Yes No
AR-9 3044+48 3085+35 Low No No
AR-10 3085+35 3088+60 High Yes No
AR-11 3088+60 3102+85 Low No No
AR-12 3102+85 3167+50 Low Yes Yes
AR-13 3167+50 3306+00 High Yes No
AR-14 3306+00 3458+85 Low Yes Yes
AR-15 3458+85 3482+50 High Yes No
AR-16 3482+50 3582+79 Low No No
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 17 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
Table 4.1 (cont.)
Phase 1 – Seismic Vulnerability Results Screening
Segment ID Station Start Station End 2015 URS
Vulnerability
Contains
Liquefiable Layer
Additional
Analysis Required
NEMDC East/North Area Streams
NMDE-1 2986+49 2995+91 Low No No
NMDE-2 2995+91 3011+65 Low Yes Yes
NMDE-3 3011+65 3192+23 Low Yes Yes
NMDE-4 4000+00 4110+34 Low No No
NMDE-5 5000+00 5112+43 Low No No
NMDE-6 6000+00 6106+66 Low No No
NMDE-7 6106+66 6167+62 Low No No
NMDE-8 7000+00 7085+57 Low No No

4.2 SEISMIC ANALYSIS WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS
Per the Guidance Document (URS, 2015b), seismic vulnerability analyses were performed using the higher of the average summer or winter Water Surface Elevations (WSE) at each ULDC segment.

Kleinfelder assessed the applicability of the average WSEs used for the 2015 liquefaction calculations for the updated calculations. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) provides a database of groundwater well measurements across the Sacramento Valley. For the updated calculations, data from wells located near a ULDC segment were evaluated for further analysis. Upon review of the available information, the mean winter and summer groundwater elevations were lower than those used for the seismic analyses in 2015. Generally, mean groundwater elevations from the past ten years were lower than those used in the liquefaction analyses in the same area by approximately 10 feet, possibly due to droughts and other seasonal factors. Therefore, it was decided to continue using the same WSEs from 2015 study because they are higher in elevation and would provide conservative results for liquefaction. 24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 18 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
5 CURRENT EVALUATION
___________________________________________________________________________________

5.1 SEISMIC EVALUATION SEGMENT SELECTION
Segments AR-12, AR-14, NMDE-2, and NMDE-3 were categorized by the 2015 ULE GERs as having low seismic vulnerability and layers with the potential for liquefaction. These segments met the criteria for a targeted evaluation using the updated deaggregation results from Kleinfelder’s GMHA.

5.1.1 Liquefaction Analysis of ULDC Segments
The 2015 URS evaluations produced SPT-Based Liquefaction Analysis Excel spreadsheets for multiple borings corresponding to the ULDC segments. These analyses for the selected NASL segments were recalculated using the updated GMHA deaggregation magnitude of 6.8. The spreadsheet calculations are included in Appendix D: Updated SPT-Based Liquefaction Calculations for Targeted Segments.

The borings for the targeted evaluation segments are listed in Table 5.1.1. The Factors of Safety (FOS) of some potentially liquefiable layers decreased from above to below 1.25 (“Non-Liquefiable” to “Less Likely Liquefiable”), and some decreased from above to below 1.0 (“Less Likely Liquefiable” to “Likely Liquefiable”). Table 5.1.1 notes borings where at least one layer changed in one of these ways; Table

5.1.2 describes the affected layers and their new Factors of Safety against liquefaction.

Table 5.1.1
Liquefaction Layer Changes for Targeted Segments
Segment
ID
Station
Start
Station
End
Liquefaction Analysis Boring
(Station)
Liquefiable Layer
Classification Change
American River – North Bank
AR-12 3102+85 3167+50
2F-97-04 (3106+13) No
2F-99-04A (3151+12) Yes
2F-96-10 (3126+49) Yes
AR-14 3306+00 3458+85
2F-97-06 (3307+50) Yes
2F-97-14 (3360+71) No
2F-99-09A (3397+21) No
2F-99-11A (3449+67) Yes
WCNBAR_003B (3306+35) No
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 19 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
Table 5.1.1 (cont.)
Liquefaction Layer Changes for Targeted Segments
Segment
ID
Station
Start
Station
End
Liquefaction Analysis Boring
(Station)
Liquefiable Layer
Classification Change
NEMDC East/North Area Streams
NMDE-2 2995+91 3011+65 K95_BE20 (3008+90) No
NMDE-3 3011+65 3192+23
K02-B3 (3038+75) Yes
WRARFC_002B (3051+36) No
WRARFC_045B (3080+63) No
WRARFC_031B (3167+60) No
Because the liquefiable layer classifications did not change for the boring within Segment NMDE-2, it remains classified as Low Vulnerability and additional analysis was not necessary.

Table 5.1.2
Liquefaction Factor of Safety Changes for Targeted Segments1 Segment
ID
Boring
(Station)
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Liquefaction FOS
(2015, Mw = 6.5)
Liquefaction FOS
(2023, Mw = 6.8)
AR-12
2F-96-10
(3126+49)

15.2 3.5 1.36 1.23

11.7 3.5 1.32 1.19
2F-99-04A
(3151+12)

13.0 3.0 1.33 1.20
AR-14
2F-97-06
(3307+50)

19.7 5.0 1.10 0.99

14.7 5.0 1.06 0.96
2F-99-11A
(3449+67)

2.9 5.0 1.03 0.94
NMDE-3
K02-B3
(3038+75)

3.5 5.0 1.26 1.14

1. Yellow: FOS indicates layer is “Less Likely Liquefiable.” Red: FOS indicates layer is “Likely Liquefiable.”
Vertical settlement calculations are not required because the liquefiable layers do not exceed 20 feet in thickness (URS, 2015b).
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 20 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder

5.2 VULNERABILITY CLASSIFICATIONS FOR TARGETED SEGMENTS The American River and NEMDC East GER Reports (URS, 2015a; URS, 2015c) include post-seismic slope stability models for targeted segments AR-12 and AR-14. These FOS against stability failure using global and block type analysis methods. No post-seismic stability model was produced for Segment NMDE-3.

The 2015 URS results for stability FOS are displayed in Table 5.2.1.

Table 5.2.1
2015 URS Post-Seismic Stability Analysis Factors of Safety for Targeted Segments Segment
ID
Analysis
Station
Landside
Global FOS
Landside
Block FOS
Waterside
Global
FOS
Waterside
Block FOS
2015 Seismic
Vulnerability
AR-12 3109+57 2.61 2.56 2.65 2.58 Low
AR-14 3306+10 6.03 5.47 4.63 4.43 Low
NMDE-3 No post seismic stability analysis performed in 2015 Low

5.2.1 Segment AR-12
The post-seismic cross section for Segment AR-12, Station 3109+57 analyzed in the American River GER (URS, 2015a) features a 7-foot Less Likely Liquefiable layer between approximate elevations 16.7 feet and 9.7 feet. The three Less Likely Liquefiable layers identified in the updated liquefaction calculations are found at elevations within this range; based on the thicknesses of these layers, the Less Likely Liquefiable layer for AR-12 would be updated to approximately 10 feet thick. However, this is not expected to significantly lower the segment’s post-seismic stability FOS, which exceeds 2.5 as shown in Table 5.2.1. Because the liquefaction calculations showed no layers for the segment become Likely Liquefiable, the cross-sectional material properties did not need to be updated.

5.2.2 Segment AR-14
The post-seismic cross section for Segment AR-14, Station 3306+10 analyzed in the American River GER (URS, 2015a) features an 11-foot Less Likely Liquefiable SP-SM layer between approximate elevations

21.9 feet and 10.9 feet. The stratigraphy, piezometric surface, and material properties of this cross section were selected based on the lab testing and liquefaction analysis results for Boring 2F-97-06.

The layer’s post-seismic shear strength was originally calculated by reducing the static drained strengths by 30%. However, because the updated liquefaction calculations classify the 11-foot layer as Likely Liquefiable, the post-seismic cross section’s stability calculations are outdated. Therefore, the cross section for Segment AR-14 was updated using residual undrained shear strengths for the Likely Liquefiable layer. The stability analysis is included as Appendix E.

5.2.2.1 Segment AR-14 Stability Analysis – Material Properties First, the residual undrained strength of the Likely Liquefiable layer was estimated. The updated liquefaction analysis produces (N1)60 value of 9 for the Likely Liquefiable SP-SM layer. After the fines/classification correction, the (N1)60-cs value becomes 10. Using the Seed-Harder Plot for Residual Strength and the procedure described in Section 6.8.2.1 in the ULE Guidance Document (2015), the residual undrained strength for the Likely Liquefiable layer was estimated as 235psf.

Additionally, the cross-sectional material properties were checked and updated using site-specific values. Effective friction angle and cohesion values from the 2015 URS Segment 14 Transverse Cross Section were used for the SM and GP layers. Per Section 5.8 of the Guidance Document (URS, 2015b), site-specific field and laboratory results were used to select material properties not listed in the 2015 URS slope stability analysis. The SPT-based liquefaction analysis for Boring ID 2F-97-06 was used to estimate unit weights for the soil layers. The slurry wall unit weight was selected as 100 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) from the American River GER (URS, 2015a) material properties for the Reach A existing soil-cement-bentonite wall (GER Table B1-A-1). This table was also used to select the undrained friction angle and cohesion values for the CL layers.

Material properties are listed in Table 5.2.2. Refer to Appendix E for the calculation package and sources for the stratigraphy and material properties.
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 22 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
Table 5.2.2
Material Properties for Segment AR-14 Post-Seismic Stability Analysis Material Unit Weight
(pcf) Ф’ (dgs) C’ (psf)
1 – SM 125 32 0
2 – SM 120 32 0
3 – SP-SM (Liquefiable) 125 0
235 (residual undrained
strength)
4 – GP 130 35 0
5 – CL 125 7 960
6 – CL Cap 125 7 960
7 – Cutoff Wall 100 0 500

5.2.2.2 Segment AR-14 Stability Analysis – Slope Stability The cross section at Station 3306+10 was constructed in SLOPE/W (GeoStudio 2023.1.2) with the Seismic Analysis WSE located at Elevation 21.9 feet (NAVD88 Datum). The FOS against slope stability failure was calculated using entry and exit slip surfaces (circular) and block specified with optimized critical slip surfaces (wedge) for the levee landside and waterside. Results are attached in Appendix E:

Post-Seismic Slope Stability Analysis for Segment AR-14. The post-seismic slope stability Factors of Safety are summarized in Table 5.2.3.

Table 5.2.3
Segment AR-14 Post-Seismic Slope Stability Factors of Safety Segment
ID
Analysis
Station
Landside
Global FOS
Landside
Block FOS
Waterside
Global
FOS
Waterside
Block FOS FOS Required
AR-14 3306+10 3.33 2.69 2.32 2.05 > 1.3
All Factors of Safety against slope stability failure are greater than 1.3. Seismic Analysis Segment AR-14 remains classified as Low Vulnerability.
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 23 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder

5.2.3 Segment NMDE-3
No post-seismic cross sections or stability calculations were made for Segment NMDE-3 in the NEMDC East GER (URS, 2015c) analysis because the original analysis did not identify any liquefiable layers.

However, a post-seismic analysis was performed at Station 3009+00 for Segment NMDE-2 because it contained a 12-foot-thick Likely Liquefiable layer between approximate elevations 13.5 feet and 1.5 feet. The post-seismic stability results for Segment NMDE-2 are summarized in Table 5.2.4 below:

Table 5.2.4
2015 URS Post-Seismic Stability Analysis Factors of Safety for Segment NMDE-2 Segment
ID
Analysis
Station
Landside
Global FOS
Landside
Block FOS
Waterside
Global
FOS
Waterside
Block FOS
2015 Seismic
Vulnerability
NMDE-2 3009+00 1.53 1.35 1.50 1.34 Low
Since the minimum post-seismic FOS is above 1.3, Segment NMDE-2 is classified as having Low Vulnerability. As shown in Table 5.1.2, Segment NMDE-3 features one Less Likely Liquefiable layer of thickness 5 feet. As such, it is assumed Segment NMDE-3 is comparatively less vulnerable than NMDE-2; therefore, since Segment NMDE-2 is classified as Low Vulnerability, Segment NMDE-3 remains classified as Low Vulnerability.
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 24 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
6 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE
_____________________________________________________________________

6.1 SUMMARY
Four Low Vulnerability segments in the North Area Streams levee region were selected for further analysis using the results of Kleinfelder’s GMHA. Kleinfelder performed liquefaction analyses using updated magnitude Mw = 6.8 and identified segments with additional layers that became less likely or likely liquefiable. Based on further investigation into each segment, Kleinfelder concluded that the four segments remain Low Vulnerability regarding seismic hazards.

The seismic vulnerability for the North Area Streams levees remains the same as the 2015 URS analysis.

Segments and their seismic vulnerability classifications are listed in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1
Seismic Vulnerability Classifications for North Area Streams Levees Segment ID Station Start Station End 2015 Seismic
Vulnerability
2023 Seismic
Vulnerability
American River - North Bank
AR-7 3000+00 3016+00 Low Low
AR-8 3016+00 3044+48 High High
AR-9 3044+48 3085+35 Low Low
AR-10 3085+35 3088+60 High High
AR-11 3088+60 3102+85 Low Low
AR-12 3102+85 3167+50 Low Low
AR-13 3167+50 3306+00 High High
AR-14 3306+00 3458+85 Low Low
AR-15 3458+85 3482+50 High High
AR-16 3482+50 3582+79 Low Low
NEMDC East/North Area Streams
NMDE-1 2986+49 2995+91 Low Low
NMDE-2 2995+91 3011+65 Low Low
NMDE-3 3011+65 3192+23 Low Low
NMDE-4 4000+00 4110+34 Low Low
NMDE-5 5000+00 5112+43 Low Low
NMDE-6 6000+00 6106+66 Low Low
NMDE-7 6106+66 6167+62 Low Low
NMDE-8 7000+00 7085+57 Low Low
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 25 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
7 LIMITATIONS
___________________________________________________________________________________ Information contained in this data report is based on our field observations, subsurface explorations completed by Kleinfelder and others, laboratory tests completed by Kleinfelder and others, and our present knowledge of the existing levee conditions. The conclusions and opinions contained in this report are also based on the assumption that information provided by the Client and/or that is referenced in this report is accurate and correct and can be relied upon. It is possible that soil conditions, including groundwater levels, could vary between or beyond the points explored.

The information, including graphic representations attached to this report, have been compiled from a variety of sources as referenced herein and are 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 the information presented in this data report. These documents are not intended for use as land survey products, nor are they designed or intended as construction design documents. The use or misuse of the information contained on these graphic representations is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

We have prepared this data report in substantial accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study. No warranty, express or implied, is provided. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site), or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party. 24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 26 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
8 REFERENCES
___________________________________________________________________________________ Abrahamson, N., Gregor, N., Addo, K. (2016). BC Hydro Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Subduction Earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 23-44.

Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J., and Kamai, R. (2014). “Summary of the ASK14 Ground Motion Relation for Active Crustal Regions.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1025-1056.

Atkinson, G.M., and Macias, M. (2009). Predicted Ground Motions for Great Interface Earthquakes in the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 99, No. 3, pp. 1552-1578.

Boore, D.M., Stewart, J.P., Seyhan, E., and Atkinson, G. (2014). “NGA-West2 Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1057-1086.

Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y. (2014). “NGA-West2 Ground Motion Model for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1087-1116.

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.

Chiou, B.S., and Youngs, R.R. (2014). “Update for the Chiou and Youngs NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1117-1154.

Fey, N., Humphreys, E., 2008, Forces Acting on the Sierra Nevada Block and Implications for the Strength of the San Andreas Fault System and the Dynamics of Continental Deformation in the Western United States. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 113, B 12415.

Field, E.H., Biasi, G.P., Bird, P., Dawson, T.E., Felzer, K.R., Jackson, D.D., Johnson, K.M., Jordan, T.H., Madden, C., Michael, A.J., Milner, K.R., Page, M.T., Parsons, T., Powers, P.M., Shaw, B.E., Thatcher, W.R., Weldon, R.J., II, and Zeng, Y. (2013). The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF 3), USGS Open File Report 2013-1165, CGS Special Report 228, Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/. 24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 27 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
Fugro William Lettis & Associates, Inc. (2011). “Technical Memorandum: Surficial Geologic Map and Geomorphic Assessment of the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal, East (NEMDC East) Study Area, Sacramento County, California,” dated February 16, 2011.

Fugro William Lettis Associates (FWLA 2008). “Surficial Geologic Map of the American River Study Area.” Scale 1:20,000. Dated 2008.

Fugro William Lettis Associates (FWLA 2011). “Surficial Geologic Map of the NEMDC East Study Area.” Scale 1:20,000. Dated 2011.

Gutierrez, C. I. (2011). “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Sacramento 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California,” California Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Maps PGM-11-06 (1:100,000 scale).

Hatanaka, M., and Uchida, A. (1996). “Empirical Correlation Between Penetration Resistance and Internal Friction Angle of Sandy Soils,” Soils and Foundations, ASCE, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 1-9.

Helley, E. J., and Harwood, D. S. (1985). “Geologic Map of the Late Cenozoic Deposits of the Sacramento Valley and Northern Sierran Foothills, California,” U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1790.

Humphreys, E., and Coblentz, D., 2007, North American Dynamics and Western U.S. Tectonics. American Geophysical Union, Reviews of Geophysics, 45, RG3001.

Idriss, I.M. (2014). “An NGA-West2 Empirical Model for Estimating the Horizontal Spectral Values Generated by Shallow Crustal Earthquakes.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1155-1177.

Jennings, C.W., Strand, R.G., and Rogers, T.H. (1977), Geologic Map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology Geologic Data Map Series Map No. 2 (1:750,000 scale).

Kleinfelder (2016a). “Problem Identification Report, North Area Streams, SAFCA FEMA Levee Accreditation (North Area Streams, American River, Sacramento River Downstream of American River, and Beach Lake Levee), Sacramento County, California,” dated April 29, 2016.

Kleinfelder (2016b). “ULDC Geotechnical Results Summary, North Area Streams, SAFCA FEMA Levee Accreditation (North Area Streams, American River, Sacramento River Downstream of American River, and Beach Lake Levee), Sacramento County, California,” dated April 29, 2016. 24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 28 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
Kleinfelder (2023a). “Seismic Evaluation Technical Approach Memorandum, ULDC & FEMA Levee Certification Project, Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Levee Systems, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California,” dated September 29, 2023.

Kleinfelder (2023b). “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 October 13, 2023.

Unruh, J., and Humphrey, J., 2017, Seismogenic Deformation Between the Sierran Microplate and Oregon Coast Block, California, USA. The Geological Society of America v. 45, no. 5, pp. 415-418.

Unruh, J., Humphrey, J., and Barron, A., 2003, Transtensional Model for the Sierra Nevada Frontal Fault System, Eastern California. Geology v. 31, no. 3, pp. 327 – 330.

URS Greiner (2000). “Plans for American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California Left (South) Bank Levee Straightening, Contract 2,” dated January 18, 2000.

URS (2009). “Phase 1 Geotechnical Data Report (P1GDR), Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC) Study Area, Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program, Contract 4600007418,” dated March 2009 (Issue date: 04-2009).

URS (2011). “Supplemental Geotechnical Data Report (SGDR), Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC) Study Area, Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program, Contract 4600007418,” dated November 2011 (Issue date: 11-2011).

URS (2011). “Supplemental Geotechnical Data Report (SGDR), American River Study Area, Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program, Contract 4600007418,” dated June 2010 (Issue date: 06- 2010).

URS (2015a). “ULE Geotechnical Evaluation Report (GER) Volume 1 and 2, American River Study Area, Urban Levee Evaluations Project, Contract 4600008101,” dated January 2015 (Issue date: 01- 2015).

URS (2015b). “Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analyses, Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program, Contract 4600008101,” dated April 2015.

URS (2015c). “ULE Geotechnical Evaluation Report Volume 2, Remedial Alternatives, NEMDC East Study Area, Urban Levee Evaluations Project, Contract 4600008101,” dated April 2015 (Issue date: 04- 2015).
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page 29 of 29 September 10, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (1990). “Settlement Analysis, EM 1110-1-1904,” dated 30 September 1990.

USACE (2001). “Geotechnical Investigations, EM 1110-1-1804”, dated 1 January 2001.

USACE (2015). “Geotechnical Office Report, American River Watershed Common Features Project General Reevaluation Report,” dated October 2013.

USACE (2016). ER 1110-2-1806 Earthquake Design and Evaluation for Civil Works Projects.

Wagner, D.L., Jennings, C.W., Bedrossian, T.L., and Bortugno, E.J. (1981). Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, California, 1:250,000 scale, California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 1A.

Zhao et al. (2006). Attenuation Relations of Strong Ground Motion in Japan using Site Classification Based on Predominant Period. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 96, No. 3, pp. 898-913.
!(
!(
!( "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"" "
"
"
"
6000+00
American River North Levee
N
E
M
D
C
East
Arcade Creek North
Dry Creek North
Arcade Creek South
Dry Creek South
¨¦§80
¨¦§80
¨¦§80
¨¦§5
£¤50
ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
16 ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
99 ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
160
ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
160
AR-10
NMDE-1
NMDE-7
AR-11
AR-7
NMDE-2
AR-15
NMDE-6
AR-8
NMDE-3
AR-9 AR-12
NMDE-8
AR-16
NMDE-3
AR-13
AR-14
NMDE-4
NMDE-5
6167+62
7085+57
7000+00
6106+66
3192+23
5112+43
5000+00
4110+34
4000+00
2995+91 3011+65
2986+49
3582+79
3482+50
3458+85
3306+00
3167+50 3102+85
3088+60
3085+35
3044+48
3016+00
3000+00
Confluence
American
River East
Arcade Creek

SITE MAP
PROJECT:

FILE NAME:

FIGURE
1-1
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
FEB 2024
R.HOCHSTATTER
A.LEONARD
F1-1_NAS_SiteMap-V2.mxd
Explanation
!( Analysis Control Point
SACRAMENTO, CA FILE: \\azrgisstorp03\GIS_Projects\Client\SAFCA\24001006.001A-SeismicPerformanceSumReport\MXD\F1-1_NAS_SiteMap-V2.mxd ALeonard 2/7/2024 0 1 2
Kilometers
Locations are Approximate
£
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User !
Project Location
^

NORTH AREA STREAMS/

AMERICAN RIVER NORTH LEVEES

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
AR-13 Seismic Segment
FIGURE
DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO.

CHECKED BY:

REVISED:

DATE:

Dry Creek North
Arcade Creek South
Arcade Creek North
Dry Creek South
N
E
M
DC
E
ast
American River North Bank

REGIONAL GEOLOGY
PROJECT:

FILE NAME:

FIGURE
2-1
DRAWN:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:
24001006.001A
OCT 2023
M. RYAN
A.LEONARD
F2-1_NAS_Geology_AL_V2.mxd
Explanation
Levee Alignment
SACRAMENTO, CA FILE: \\azrgisstorp03\GIS_Projects\Client\SAFCA\24001006.001A-SeismicPerformanceSumReport\MXD\F2-1_NAS_Geology_AL_V2.mxd ALeonard 1/5/2024 0 1 2
Kilometers
Locations are Approximate
£

NORTH AREA STREAMS/

AMERICAN RIVER NORTH LEVEES

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA

NORTH AREA STREAMS LEVEES

GEOLOGY MAP
PROJECT:

FILE NAME:

FIGURE
2-2
DRAWN:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:
24001006.001A
OCT 2023
M. RYAN
A.LEONARD
SAFECA_working.mxd
SACRAMENTO, CA FILE: \\azrgisstorp03\GIS_Projects\Client\SAFCA\24001006.001A-SeismicPerformanceSumReport\PRO\SAFECA_working\SAFECA_working.aprx ALeonard 1/5/2024

NORTH AREA STREAMS/

AMERICAN RIVER NORTH LEVEES

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER NORTH LEVEE

GEOLOGY MAP
PROJECT:

FILE NAME:

FIGURE
2-3
DRAWN:

CHECKED BY:

NORTH AREA STREAMS/

AMERICAN RIVER NORTH LEVEES

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE SUMMARY REPORT

SAFCA LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page A-1 September 10, 2024
© 2024 Kleinfelder

APPENDIX A

SEISMIC TECHNICAL APPROACH MEMORANDUM
_____________________________________________________________________ 24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 1 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701

SEISMIC EVALUATIONTECHNICAL APPROACH MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 8, 2024
TO: Mr. Pete Ghelfi, PE
Director of Engineering
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
1325 J Street, Suite 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814
FROM: Ryan Hochstatter, EIT
Zia Zafir, PhD, PE, GE
SUBJECT: Seismic Evaluation Technical Approach Memorandum ULDC & FEMA Levee Certification Project
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Levee Systems
Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California
___________________________________________________________________________________ 1 INTRODUCTION
Kleinfelder has been tasked by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) with evaluating the seismic vulnerability of the Sacramento area levees located in Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California as shown on Attachment 1. This technical approach memorandum presents the methodology for the seismic evaluation consistent with the Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC) (DWR, May 2012) and the Urban Levee Evaluations Project Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis (DWR Guidance Document) (DWR and URS, 2015).

This memorandum has been prepared consistent with the requirements of the approved scope of work for the subject project outlined in Kleinfelder’s proposal dated May 5, 2023. 2 PURPOSE
SAFCA is working with a team of consultants to obtain ULDC and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) certifications for the Sacramento area levees. The purpose of this document is to establish a seismic vulnerability evaluation methodology that conforms to ULDC. Methodology will generally follow seismic vulnerability guidelines for intermittently-loaded levees as described in the DWR Guidance Document (DWR and URS, 2015). The results of the seismic vulnerability evaluation will be used to evaluate the seismic vulnerability for FEMA certification.

The levees will be organized by selection of “sections” instead of reaches due to the variable nature of subsurface conditions under levees. Sections may overlap multiple reaches or reaches may be subdivided into multiple sections. Note that for sections encompassing or divided by roadway overcrossings, the overcrossings will be simplified to their centerlines, and additional improvements to the levee for overcrossing abutments will be neglected. 24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 2 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 3 PROJECT FEATURES
Attachment 1, Seismic Planning Services Responsibility Map, shows the following levee systems and their associated component levees. The levee systems are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Levee Systems and Component Levees
Levee System Reach
1 - Dry Creek Dry Creek North Levee
2 - Robla-Arcade
Dry Creek South / Robla Levee
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC) East Levee - Robla to Arcade Creek Arcade Creek North Levee
3 - American North
Arcade Creek South Levee
NEMDC East Levee - Arcade Creek to American River
American River North Levee
4 - American South
American River South Levee
Sacramento River East Levee (SREL) - American River to NBLL North Beach Lake Levee
5 - Natomas Basin
Natomas Cross Canal South Levee (NCC)
SREL - NCC to Powerline Road
SREL - Powerline Road to American River
American River North Levee - Sacramento River to NEMDC
NEMDC West Levee
Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) West Levee
4 GOVERNING STANDARDS
Methodology for conducting seismic vulnerability evaluation of levees is governed by design criteria developed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Relevant publications that will be the primary source for Kleinfelder’s analysis includes:
• Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC, 2012) “Section 7.7 – Seismic Vulnerability” • Urban Levee Evaluations Project Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis (ULE, 2015), DWR and URS, “Section 6.0 – Seismic Analysis” - included as Attachment 3 Additionally, ground motion parameter development for evaluations is governed by applicable US Army Corps of Engineer’s Regulations and Manuals (ER & EM). Design guidance applicable to the seismic evaluation includes:
• Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-1913 (April 2000, USACE) “Design and Construction of Levees” 24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 3 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 • Engineer Regulation (ER) 1110-2-1806 (May 2016, USACE) “Earthquake Design and Evaluation for Civil Works Projects”
• Engineering and Design Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-580 (March 2013, USACE) “Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Levees”
5 SESIMIC VULNERABILITY EVALUATION WORKFLOW
An overview of the seismic vulnerability evaluation workflow is shown on Attachment 2. The seismic vulnerability evaluation workflow was adapted from the DWR seismic vulnerability evaluation as a part of the DWR ULDC Guidance Document included as Attachment 3. Three stages of evaluation are identified as:

1. Preliminary Work

2. Phase 1: Screening Review of Existing Analysis

3. Phase 2: Targeted Evaluation
Each stage is discussed in greater detail in the sections below.

5.1 Preliminary Work and Methodology for Developing New Peak Ground Accelerations The existing geotechnical analysis and subsurface data will be reviewed to identify the seismic segments.

During this process, any data gaps will be identified, and an updated peak ground acceleration (PGA) and earthquake magnitude will be established.

5.1.1 Existing Ground Motion Data
Previous development of ground motion parameters in the area was performed by URS in 2007 as part of the Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS), which was updated and expanded on in 2012 by URS as part of the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Urban Levee Evaluation (ULE) project. A 200-year return period seismic hazard map was developed for the ULE area, which encompasses the ULDC area.

The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis performed for the ULE area was based on the UCERF2 seismic source characterization. The ground motion parameters developed by URS consisted of peak horizontal acceleration for soil/rock condition at a depth of 300 feet below the ground surface. In addition, associated earthquake magnitude was also estimated.

For this project the source characterization by others will be reviewed, where high-quality peer reviewed seismic source models are available. This will include studies performed by the United States Geological Survey applicable to the project region (e.g. Petersen et al. 2014, 2019), statewide studies performed as part of the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3 - Field et al., 2013). It is expected the UCERF3 characterization will be primarily used for this project due to its wide adoption in other work and for consistency with the deprecated UCERF2 model used in previous work by URS. Additionally, Petersen et al. (2014, 2019) models will be used for far-field seismic sources outside of California (e.g. Cascadia, etc.)
24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 4 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 Analysis performed by URS in 2012 for ULE identified several potential seismic sources in the area that were not included in the UCERF2 model (i.e. Northern Midland fault zone). The UCERF3 model will be evaluated for inclusion of these sources.

Following evaluation of existing design ground motion data, segments of levee with either non-existent or out-of-date seismic data will be analyzed according to procedures described below.

5.1.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)
The PSHA approach that will be used to estimate the ground motion parameters (typically peak ground and spectral ground accelerations) is generally consistent with requirements of ULDC, with some modifications in implementation based on current standards of practice for probabilistic evaluations in California (e.g. “Grand Inversion” approach). The probabilistic approach is used in place of a deterministic approach as permitted by ER 1110-2-1806 §7d.

A site-specific PSHA is a useful tool in the evaluation of the potential ground motion hazard at a site. The model generally includes a representative seismic source model (such as geometry, style of faulting, magnitude, etc.), appropriate recurrence relationships, and appropriate ground motion models (aka. attenuation relationships). Modifications to the standard approach can also incorporate site-specific evaluation of site effects such as amplification. The model can be used to quantify the potential for strong ground shaking at a site. The hazard results are typically interpreted at a given earthquake return period to provide an equal or uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) for use in design.

The PSHA uses a logic tree approach to account for epistemic uncertainty in the model, with aleatoric variability accounted for in the uncertainty associated with various models (e.g. GMM’s). The logic tree is developed to account for uncertainties in the source models, ground motion models, and other items impacting the results. Important source characteristics include slip rates and fault lengths, magnitude and recurrence intervals of potential seismic events, distance from the site to the causative source, and other parameters. The effects of site soil conditions, and other considerations such as basin effects, can be accounted for using ground motion models (GMMs).

The theory behind the probabilistic approach to seismic risk analysis has been developed over many years (Cornell, 1968, 1971; Merz and Cornell, 1973; SSHAC, 1997), and is based on the "total probability theorem". Generally, this work uses an assumption that earthquakes are events that are independent of time and space from one another (e.g. time independent models). According to this approach, the probability of exceedance PE(z) at a given level of ground motion, z, at the site within a specified time period, t, is related to the annual frequency of exceedance v(z) by:

𝑃𝐸
(𝑧) = 1 −𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑒𝑥𝑝 (−𝑣(𝑧) ∗ 𝑡)
Different probabilities of exceedance may be selected, depending on the level of performance required.

The return period is essentially equivalent to the reciprocal of v(z).

The PSHA is conducted using three generalized steps that include the following. 24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 5 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701

1. Development of an appropriate seismic source model including source characterization, development of recurrence relationships, and appropriately capturing uncertainty

2. Selection of appropriate ground motion models (and site amplification models, if appropriate)

5.1.3 Seismic Source Model
The seismic source model for a site contains all information required to characterize potential seismic sources for use in evaluation of ground motion parameters. The source model typically includes information on the geometry (e.g. length, dip, depth, etc.), style of faulting, magnitude, and recurrence relationships for all potentially active seismic sources within a distance capable of significantly impacting a site. The source model used for this work is discussed below.

5.1.4 ‘Grand Inversion’ and Recurrence Rates
The earthquake recurrence rates used in the source model will be adopted as developed by the UCERF3 project, as implemented by Petersen et al. (2019) using the branch-averaged solutions of the ‘grand inversion’. This is a departure from the older standard of practice documented in EM 1110-2-6053 and Draft EM 1110-2-6000, which solves for the entire system of faults within California simultaneously.

The ‘grand inversion’ scheme developed by the UCERF3 project team, the results of which will be adopted in this work, ‘solved’ the on-fault and off-fault recurrence rates at a system level using a set of defined constraints including the spatial probability density of off-fault seismicity, slip rate balancing, paleoseismic even rate matching, fault smoothness constraint, regional magnitude frequency distribution constraints, and fault section specific magnitude frequency distribution constraints. In simple terms the ‘grand inversion’ solves for three things: large on-fault (supra-seismogenic) event rates; small, near-fault (subseismogenic) event rates; and truly off-fault (unassociated) event rates. The 24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 6 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 supra-seismogenic ‘on-fault’ events are ultimately modeled using linear fault sources while the latter two categories (subseismogenic and off-fault) are considered ‘background seismicity’ and are modeled using spatially smoothed ‘grid’ of evenly spaced cells (a.k.a. gridded seismicity). The combined on-fault and off-fault solution set (fault system solution) used the logic tree solution framework shown in a generalized form on Attachment 4. Our model implements the branch-averaged solutions.

The on-fault seismicity considers two potential alternative fault models, equally weighted, identified as fault model 3.1 (FM 3.1) and fault model 3.2 (FM 3.2). These fault models each contain a slightly different collections of fault traces that are broken into ‘segments’ for modeling purposes, with individual segments strung together during evaluation to create hundreds of thousands of potential fault-based ruptures or multi-rupture events. In our model, fault segments are modeled with the recurrence rates constrained during the ‘grand inversion’ by the UCERF2 ‘characteristic’ inversion branch (e.g. Schwartz and Coppersmith, 1984). Fault slip rates (deformations) are constrained by a combination of a ‘pure’ geologic deformation model and three other models that consider geologic and geodetic data including the average fault block model, NewKinema model, and Zeng-Shen model. The magnitude-area relationships used along with the associated slip-length models, as well as other solution constraints applied, are shown with weights on Attachment 4 and are discussed in detail in Field et al. (2013) and associated publications.

Off-fault seismicity (e.g. background seismicity) recurrence rates are solved for simultaneously by the ‘grand inversion’. This off-fault background seismicity is intended to include all smaller earthquakes (Mw<~6.5) on major faults and earthquakes of all sizes that are not associated with known faults. The off-fault background seismicity considers spatial smoothing of a ‘grid’ of evenly spaced cells using the spatial probability density function (PDF) grids of off-fault seismicity from UCERF2 and UCERF3 (equally weighted), considering the regional constraints on the model including the total regional magnitudefrequency distribution (e.g. Gutenberg-Richter distribution), maximum off-fault magnitude, number of regional events per year greater than Magnitude 5, and other constraints as shown on the logic tree (see Attachment 4). The branch-averaged, gridded seismicity solution for each fault model, as implemented by Petersen et al. (2019), was used in the source model for this work.

We note that the catalog used in this work was not updated in 2019, as re-evaluation of the grand inversion scheme requires a supercomputer. However, the USGS reviewed the catalog used for UCERF3 and concluded that the addition of recent historical events to the catalog is not needed at this time, as the additional historical events in the last half decade typically will not significantly change the model results, with changes generally small, localized, and often near active faults, and thus already adequately modeled (Petersen et al., 2019).

5.1.5 Ground Motion Model’s (GMM’s)
This study makes use of response spectral attenuation relationships, also known as ground motion models (GMMs), in evaluations at the site as required by ER 1110-2-1806.

Site-specific ground motions can be influenced by the styles of faulting, magnitudes of the earthquakes, and local soil conditions. Other effects such as near-source or basin effects can also influence the ground motions. The GMM’s used to estimate ground motion from an earthquake source need to directly or 24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 7 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 indirectly consider these effects. Many GMMs have been developed to estimate the variation of spectral acceleration with earthquake magnitude and distance from the site to the source of an earthquake.

We will use four of the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) West 2 relationships including Abrahamson et al. (2014), Boore et al. (2014), Chiou and Youngs (2014), and Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014) with equal weights applied for all crustal faults (e.g. reverse, strike-slip, normal) included in the fault model.

The Idriss (2014) model has not been used as it is not valid at the larger distances used in this study (e.g. more than 150 km). The far-field subduction events (e.g. from Cascadia megathrust) were modeled using the relationships of Atkinson and Macias (2009), Abrahamson et al. (2016), and Zhao et al. (2006) with equal weights applied, except that for slab events the Atkinson and Macias (2009) relationship was excluded. Spectral acceleration values are obtained by averaging the individual hazard results. These GMM’s provide ‘mean’ (RotD50) values of ground motions associated with magnitude, distance, site soil conditions, and mechanism of faulting. The uncertainty in the predicted ground motion was taken into consideration by including a magnitude dependent standard error in the probabilistic analysis.

5.1.6 Control Points and Site Parameters
Evaluation of seismic hazard and model development for site specific studies is usually completed at a control point considered representative of a structure or facility. For this project, multiple control points along levee alignments will be considered for evaluation of seismic hazard for the levees associated with this project. Points along levee alignment are considered adequate as active faults are generally located at distance from the site, and thus, small differences due to control point location variation should be minimal. Spacing between control points will vary based on soil conditions and mapped accelerations, with maximum spacing of 1 km (3280 ft). The control points will be used in evaluation of distance terms (rx, rjb, rrup) required for the selected GMM’s.

The value of VS30 will be evaluated based on data from previous reports. Ground motions will be evaluated at the ground surface and consider average or best estimate shear wave velocity profiles applicable to the levee under consideration, without modification to the ground motions due to soft clay and liquefied soil response. Z1.0 and Z2.5 will be developed considering various geologic factors and estimates from the NGA West 2 correlations to develop best estimate values.

5.2 PHASE 1: SCREENING REVIEW OF EXISTING ANALYSIS
The purpose of the screening process is to identify sections where original analyses are determined to be deficient, and sections where updated analyses indicate potential deformation where original analyses did not.

Sections determined to be non-critical for seismic performance will not be used in analyses or presented in report.
24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 8 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 Newly developed PGA’s for critical sections will be compared to PGA’s from previous reports. If the new PGA value and associated earthquake magnitude are lower than the original values and the original analysis is found to be adequate, no further analysis is required for that section. If the original analysis determined the section is not susceptible to deformation, no further analysis is required, unless new PGA and/or earthquake magnitude show significant liquefaction susceptibility. Additionally, if the section was found to be failing in Flow Failure or High Vulnerability based on original PGA and earthquake magnitude, no further analysis will be required.

5.3 PHASE 2: TARGETED EVALUATION
The purpose of targeted evaluation is to determine susceptibility to deformation based on updated parameters.

A targeted evaluation is required for critical sections under two conditions, as follows:

1. The new PGA and earthquake magnitude is less than or equal than the original PGA, the original analysis is determined to be inadequate, and the Flow Failure factor of safety (FOS) with original PGA is greater or equal to 1

2. The new PGA and/or earthquake magnitude is greater than the original PGA, the original analysis or conditions classify the section as low or moderate vulnerability, and the Flow Failure FOS with original PGA is greater than 1
If the targeted section meets ULDC criteria, no further analysis is required. If the section does not meet ULDC criteria, Flow Failure and deformation must be analyzed using new seismic values. Flow Failure FOS and deformation results will be presented in Kleinfelder’s report and used in the development of the Seismic Performance Summary Report and Post-Earthquake Remediation Plan. 6 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING SEISMIC VULNERABILITY
Seismic vulnerability evaluation will follow the guidance provided in DWR Guidance Document (DWR and URS, 2015). High, Moderate, and Low Vulnerability classifications will be based on the seismic deformation estimates. As mentioned earlier, all sections classified as High Vulnerability in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 screening process will not be analyzed.

The following steps are involved in assessing seismic vulnerability, Step numbers are associated with Key Steps described in Figure 1, Table 6-1 of the DWR Guidance Document (DWR and URS, 2015); see Attachment 2 for the workflow chart.

1. Perform liquefaction analysis using revised PGA and earthquake magnitude values using URS spreadsheets to delineate zones of liquefaction.

Based on the results of liquefaction, identify any additional cross section for analysis. We will be using the cross sections already developed for our previous studies. 24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 9 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701

2. For selected cross sections, estimate FOS against flow failure using residual strength for liquefiable materials and performing static slope stability analysis. If FOS is less than 1, the section is classified as “High Vulnerability” and no further analysis is needed.

If FOS against flow failure is greater than 1.3, section will be classified as “Low Vulnerability”, unless analysis for volumetric strain results in a higher vulnerability class.

Kleinfelder has previously performed extensive slope failure modeling along the levee alignments using SLOPE/W, a two-dimensional finite element computer modeling, a package included in the GEOSTUDIO software package, which is developed by Bentley Systems, Inc. It is anticipated that those models will be updated to the current version of GEOSTUDIO (2023.1.0) and utilized for Targeted Flow Failure analyses. New analyses may need to be developed on an as-needed basis. Idealized soil properties will be based on previous investigations and generalized parameters from DWR Guidance Document (DWR and URS, 2015). Water surface elevations for seismic flow failure analyses will be the higher of either average summer or average winter water surfaces, in accordance with DWR Guidance Document (DWR and URS 2015).

Slope failure analyses should consider all potential failure modes, including:
• Waterside and landside
• Deep and shallow
• Circular and wedge-shaped

3. If FOS against flow failure is between 1.0 and 1.3, a simplified seismic deformation analysis should be performed on the section. This involves computing a maximum horizontal seismic coefficient (Kmax) and performing a pseudo-static stability analysis using a horizontal seismic coefficient of 50% of the maximum value. This analysis will be performed using the same updated SLOPE/W models used in Step 2. If the resulting FOS is greater than 1.0, the section may be classified as “Low Vulnerability”.

Yield acceleration (Ky) values must then be estimated using pseudo-static analyses using the same SLOPE/W models used in Step 2. Yield acceleration is defined as the minimum horizontal acceleration resulting in a just-stable slope condition, i.e. FOS = 1.0. Yield acceleration should be developed for each potential failure mode.

A vertical Newmark-type deformation analysis should be performed based on the Kmax and Ky values determined above. The calculated Newmark displacement may be reduced by 30% for estimation of freeboard loss.

Volumetric settlement should be considered for sections with potentially liquefiable soils thicker than 20ft. Previous work performed by URS on ULE considered (N1)60-cs blow counts less than 15 as liquefiable and subject to volumetric settlement. This blow count criteria will be evaluated against new research and revised if necessary.
24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 10 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 Seismic vulnerability classification is determined by calculating freeboard loss as the sum of Newmark-type vertical deformation and volumetric settlement (if applicable). Freeboard loss is evaluated as a percentage of levee height (as measured from hinge point on the landside toe).

Engineering judgment should be used to determine damage to internal levee structures, and the seismic vulnerability class should be evaluated based on Table 6-1 from the DWR Guidance Document (URS and DWR, 2015) shown below.

Figure 1: Table 6-1 from DWR Guidance Document, Section 6.4

4. Advanced seismic deformation analyses as described in Attachment 2 are applicable only to frequently loaded levees and will not be considered for this analysis. 7 LIMITATIONS
This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelder’s profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided. The work performed was based on project information provided by client. Kleinfelder’s conclusions, opinions, and recommendations are based on a limited number of observations and data. It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the data evaluated.

Kleinfelder makes no other representation, guarantee, or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided.

This report may be used only by the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge and only for the purposes stated for this specific engagement within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than two years from the date of the report.

Conclusions contained in this report are based on review of existing information referenced in this report and Kleinfelder’s present knowledge of the project. It is possible conditions could vary from that contained in those documents. If conditions are encountered that differ from those described herein, the client is responsible for ensuring that Kleinfelder is notified immediately so that we may reevaluate the conclusions of this report.
24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 11 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 The scope of services was limited. It should be recognized that definition and evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions present due to the limitations of data from field studies. The conclusions of this assessment are based on the information presented herein.

Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive studies yield more information, which may help understand and manage the level of risk.

All rivers, streams and lakes will flood eventually. This fact means that all levees will be called upon to combat floodwaters at some point. Levees reduce the risk of flooding. But no levee system can eliminate all risk of flooding. The term “certification” is not intended to provide a guarantee or warranty of the conditions of the levee or its performance and assumes the following 1) a certification by a registered professional engineer or other party does not constitute a warranty or guarantee of performance, expressed or implied; 2) certification of data is a statement that the data is accurate to the best of the certifier’s knowledge; and 3) certification of analyses is a statement that the analyses have been performed correctly and in accordance with sound engineering practices. A levee certification does not address or mitigate the inherent flood risk proposed to a particular community. 8 CLOSING
This seismic evaluation technical approach memorandum is for review by the subject project’s peer review panel for concurrence with the approach for the forthcoming site-specific ground motion hazard analysis. If you have questions regarding this memorandum or if we may be of further assistance, please contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,
KLEINFELDER, INC.

Ryan Hochstatter, EIT Zia Zafir, PE, GE
Staff Geotechnical Engineer Sr. Principal Geotechnical Engineer

ATTACHMENTS
Levee Systems and Component Levee Map
Seismic Workflow
Seismic Vulnerability Analysis – Key Steps (DWR Guidance Document, 2015, DWR and URS) UCERF3 Source Model Logic Tree
24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 12 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701

REFERENCES
___________________________________________________________________________________ Abrahamson, N., Gregor, N., Addo, K. (2016). BC Hydro Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Subduction Earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 23-44.

Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J., and Kamai, R. (2014). “Summary of the ASK14 Ground Motion Relation for Active Crustal Regions.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1025-1056.

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

Chiou, B S., and Youngs, R.R. (2014). “Update for the Chiou and Youngs NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1117-1154.

Cornell, C.A. (1968). Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 58, No. 5.

Cornell, C.A. (1971). Probabilistic Analysis of Damage to Structures Under Seismic Loading, Dynamic Waves in Civil Engineering, London, Interscience.

Idriss, I. M. (2014). “An NGA-West2 Empirical Model for Estimating the Horizontal Spectral Values Generated by Shallow Crustal Earthquakes.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1155-1177.

Merz, H.L. and Cornell, C.A. (1973). Seismic Risk Analysis Based on a Quadratic Magnitude-Frequency Law, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 63, No. 6.

Petersen, M.D., Moschetti, M.P., Powers, P.M., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Frankel, A.D., Zeng, Yuehua, Rezaeian, Sanaz, Harmsen, S.C., Boyd, O.S., Field, Ned, Chen, Rui, Rukstales, K.S., Luco, Nico, Wheeler, R.L., Williams, R.A., and Olsen, A.H. (2014). Documentation for the 2014 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, USGS Open-File Report 2014-1091, 243 p., https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141091.

Petersen, M.D., Shumway, A.M., Powers, P.M., et al. (2019). The 2018 Update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of Model and Implications, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp. 5-41.

Powers, P.M. (2017). National Seismic Hazard Model Project Computer Code (NSHMP-HAZ) Software, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZW1K31.
24001006.001A/SAC24M163970 Page 13 of 13 February 8, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 Schwartz, D.P. and Coppersmith, K.J. (1984). Fault Behavior and Characteristic Earthquakes: Examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas Fault Zones, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 89, pp. 5681-5698.

Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) (1997). Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Report No. CR-6372.

URS (2015b). “Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analyses, Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program, Contract 4600008101,” dated April 2015.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1999). Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-6050 “Response Spectra and Seismic Analysis of Concrete Hydraulic Structures.” USACE (2000). Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-1913 “Design and Construction of Levees.” USACE (2013). Engineering and Design Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-580 “Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Levees.”
USACE (2016). Engineer Regulation (ER) 1110-2-1806 “Earthquake Design and Evaluation for Civil Works Projects.”
Zhao et al. (2006). Attenuation Relations of Strong Ground Motion in Japan using Site Classification Based on Predominant Period. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 96, No. 3, pp. 898-913.

Yolo
Bypass
Fremont
Weir
Sacramento
Weir
w
Natomas
Cross Canal
NEMDC
River
Natomas
Basin
American
h
Sacramento
[
Folsom
Lake
Folsom
Arcade
Creek
Roseville
Dry Creek
Mo
rris
on
Creek
Strawberry
Creek
Natomas Levees
Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project
(Auxiliary Spillway)
North Area
Streams Levees
South Sacramento
Streams Group Levees
American River
Levees
Sacramento River Levees
South of Confluence
Sacramento
River
tu50
|ÿ70
§¨¦I-80
|ÿ99
§¨¦I-5
|ÿ99
|ÿ160
§¨¦I-80
PLACER
COUNTY
SUTTER
COUNTY
:

Legend
Federal Project Leveeor StructureNon Project Levee
0 3.5 1.75
Scale in Miles
SAFCA Flood Control
System Features

KLEINFELDER SEISMIC RESPONSIBILITY REACH
North Beach Lake
Levee
ATTACHMENT B: Seismic Planning Services Responsibility Map Proposal For Geotechnical Engineer & Seismic Planning Services ULDC & FEMA Levee Certification Program
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Levee Systems
Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California
1 Figure
6-1
Seismic Vulnerability Analysis – Key Steps

URBAN LEVEE EVALUATIONS
Department of Water Resources
Division of Flood Management
Step 2: Perform Post-Seismic Stability Analysis
Step 3f: Calculate volumetric strain, if necessary
Step 3a: Compute Kmax using Figure 6-4
Step 3e: Estimate vertical deformation as 0.7 times total Newmark displacement
Step 3g: Assign seismic vulnerability class using Table 6-1 Step 3c: Compute Ky value for sliding mass
Step 3d: Compute Newmark displacement using Kmax, Ky, and Figure 6-5 Yes
Step 3b: Perform pseudo-static stability analysis using K=0.5 Kmax No
Classify as “Low Vulnerability” unless
Volumetric Strain (Step 3f ) results in a
higher vulnerability class
Is
FSPS < 1?
Yes
No
Perform post-seismic stability analysis
Continue to Step 3
No further analysis is needed.

APPENDIX B

GROUND MOTION PARAMETER SELECTION MEMORANDUM
_____________________________________________________________________ 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 1 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701

GROUND MOTION PARAMETER SELECTION MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 9, 2024
TO: Mr. Pete Ghelfi, PE
Director of Engineering
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
1325 J Street, Suite 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814
FROM: Ryan Hochstatter, EIT
Zia Zafir, PhD, PE, GE
SUBJECT: Revised Seismic Evaluation Ground Motion Parameter Selection Memorandum ULDC & FEMA Levee Certification Project
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Levee Systems
Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California
____________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum presents the regional ground motion hazard analysis (GMHA) approach and inputs, including the development of peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) and design response spectral values to support the seismic vulnerability evaluation of levees located in the Sacramento Area of California consistent with the requirements of the Urban Levee Design Criteria (DWR, 2012).

This memorandum has been prepared consistent with the requirements of the approved scope of work for the subject project outlined in our proposal dated May 5, 2023, as well the GMHA methodology described in our Seismic Evaluation Technical Approach Memorandum dated September 5th, 2023.

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. The purpose of this document is to provide ground motions in terms of peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) based on the new seismic sources and ground motion models. Development of ground motions follow the methodology presented in our Technical Approach Memorandum dated September 5, 2023.

The levees will be organized by selection of “sections” instead of reaches due to the variable nature of subsurface conditions under levees. Sections may overlap multiple reaches or reaches may be subdivided into multiple sections. Note that for sections encompassing or divided by roadway overcrossings, the overcrossings will be simplified to their centerlines, and additional improvements to the levee for overcrossing abutments will be neglected. 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 2 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701

PROJECT FEATURES
Figure 1 shows the following levee systems and their associated component levees. The levee systems are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1
Levee Systems and Component Levees
Levee System Reach
1 - Dry Creek Dry Creek North Levee
2 - Robla-Arcade
Dry Creek South / Robla Levee
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC) East Levee - Robla to Arcade Creek Arcade Creek North Levee
3 - American
North
Arcade Creek South Levee
NEMDC East Levee - Arcade Creek to American River
American River North Levee
4 - American
South
American River South Levee
Sacramento River East Levee (SREL) -American River to NBLL North Beach Lake Levee
5 - Natomas
Basin
Natomas Cross Canal South Levee (NCC)
SREL - NCC to Powerline Road
SREL - Powerline Road to American River
American River North Levee - Sacramento River to NEMDC
NEMDC West Levee
Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) West Levee

GOVERNING STANDARDS
Methodology for conducting seismic vulnerability evaluation of levees is governed by design criteria developed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Relevant publications that will be the primary source for Kleinfelder’s analysis includes:
• Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC, 2012) “Section 7.7 – Seismic Vulnerability” • Urban Levee Evaluations Project Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis (ULE, 2015), DWR and URS, “Section 6.0 – Seismic Analysis”
Additionally, ground motion parameter development for evaluations is governed by applicable US Army Corps of Engineer’s Regulations and Manuals (ER & EM). Design guidance applicable to the seismic evaluation includes:
• Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-1913 (April 2000, USACE) “Design and Construction of Levees” • Engineer Regulation (ER) 1110-2-1806 (May 2016, USACE) “Earthquake Design and Evaluation for Civil Works Projects”
24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 3 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 • Engineering and Design Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-580 (March 2013, USACE) “Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Levees”

SEISMIC SOURCE INPUTS
General
Site characterization was completed in general accordance with ER 1110-2-1806 §8. In general, this includes characterization of the topographic, hydrologic, and geologic/stratigraphic characteristics of the site and the associated engineering properties as needed for seismic evaluations.

Regional Setting
The regional setting is used in developing seismic source models and informs the interpretation of local geology. The regional setting includes discussion of the regional geology and stratigraphy, seismotectonic setting, faulting and fault rupture, and historic seismicity. Details are discussed below.

Regional Geologic Setting
The study area is located within the southern portion of the Sacramento Valley, within the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley province is a north-south trending 400-mile by 50-mile long alluvial plain in central California comprised of the Sacramento Valley in the north and the San Joaquin Valley in the south. The Sacramento Valley contains thousands of feet of accumulated fluvial, overbank, and alluvial fan deposits derived from erosion of the adjacent Sierra Nevada mountains to the east, northern Coast Range mountains to the west, and Klamath and Cascade mountains to the north. These deposits are primarily comprised of Quaternary and Tertiary age (present day to 56 million years ago) alluvial deposits and include clays, silts, sands, and gravels. The alluvial deposits thin out at the margins of the Great Valley Province, exposing underlying bedrock units. The Foothills Metamorphic Belt and the basement complex of the Sierra Nevada Batholith to the east are exposed along the eastern boundary of the valley. Sedimentary and mélange bedrock of the northern Coast Range mountains are exposed to the west. Meta-sedimentary, mélange, igneous, and volcanic bedrock of the Klamath and Cascade mountains are exposed to the north.

The study area has been regionally mapped by a number of geologists. These include published maps by Wagner et al. (1981), Helley and Harwood (1985), Gutierrez, C.I. (2011), and Fugro William Lettis & Associates (FWLA, 2010). Wagner et al. (1981) provides the most regional context but very little detail relative to the project area. Helley and Harwood mapping (performed at a scale of 1:62,500) focuses on Quaternary geologic units based on geomorphology. Gutierrez, C.I. (2011) is the most recent map of the study area and provides more current regional geologic mapping relative to Helley and Harwood (1985).

Fugro William Lettis & Associates (FWLA, 2010) provides more detailed surficial Quaternary deposits.

The project area is shown on Wagner D. L. (1981) on Figure 1.

Subsurface Stratigraphy at Depth
The Great Valley geomorphic province is characterized as an elongated low-lying basin through central California filled with thousands of feet of sediment. The Great Valley province is situated on the remnants of the Jurassic age forearc basin of the Pacific Plate subducting under the North American Plate. The forearc basin is a regional and asymmetrical feature with the western portion being deepest 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 4 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 (Harwood and Helley, 1987). The sediment within the basin is referred to collectively as the Great Valley Sequence, comprised of present day to Eocene age alluvial deposits. Underlying the Great Valley Sequence are Cretaceous age marine sedimentary rocks such as shales and sandstones. Underlying the marine sedimentary rocks is an ophiolite suite which is typically comprised of ultramafic (i.e. periodite and dunite) to mafic rocks (i.e. gabbro and basalt) overlain by shale and chert (Harden 1998).

Seismotectonic Setting
The site is located in the Western United States (WUS) in the transform plate boundary region between the Pacific Plate (transitioning northwest) and the North American Plate (see Figure 4). The site lies within the Sierra Nevada-Great Valley block (a.k.a., the Sierra Nevada microplate, or SNGV) which generally is thought to act as an independent block that has ‘tilted’ westward. The SNGV block is bounded on its eastern edge by a zone of faults known as the Walker Lane Belt, beyond which is the crustal extensional region of the Northern Basin and Range. Further afield in the northwestern portion of the state and extending northward to the pacific northwest, the Juan de Fuca plate is currently subducting below the North American plate in a region known as the Cascadia Subduction Zone (Humphreys and Coblentz, 2007; Unruh and Humphrey, 2003, 2017).

Regional stress build-up due to the northwestern movement of the Pacific Plate is primarily released through displacement along faults within the San Andreas fault system (e.g. San Andreas fault, Hayward fault, etc.) and to a lesser extent by displacements along faults within the Walker Lane Belt. Crustal extension of the Northern Basin and Range has led to the development of stress in the east-west direction and caused development of an extensive system of faults within the Northern Basin and Range (Fey and Humphreys, 2008; Field et al., 2013).

Faults and Fault Rupture
Regional faulting and potential for fault rupture directly impact the potential sources of seismicity and thus the seismic risk at a site. For this study, Quaternary age faults (considered potentially seismically active) were reviewed consistent with the recommendations of EM 1110-2-1806. Based on our review, a number of Quaternary and older faults were identified as shown on Figure 3, with select Quaternary faults within 100 km1of the site listed in Table 2. Detailed discussion of faulting and potential for fault rupture is provided below.

The closest potentially active system to the site is the Great Valley fault system which lies to the west of the site. The closest segments of the Great Valley system include the Midland fault2located roughly 30 km to the southwest of the site (DWR, 2007; Unruh and Hitchcock, 2009), and the Dunnigan Hills3thrust fault which lies to the west-northwest (Jennings and Bryant, 2010; Parrish, 2018). Other significant active faults to the west of the site include faults within the San Andreas system (San Andreas fault, Hayward fault, Calaveras fault, etc.). East of the site, the active fault systems include the Foothills fault system (Paynes Peak fault, Spenceville fault, Maidu East fault, etc.) and a series of strike-slip and normal 1 A 100 km distance was used in the table for consistency with the distance to which more detailed seismic source characterization was completed, see Section 3.3 for details.
2 The Midland fault zones northern extension consists of somewhat complex geometry in the vicinity of Rio Vista and northward. Detailed geometry not shown in this report, see Unruh and Hitchcock (2009) for details. 3 The Dunnigan Hills (aka. Zamora Fault) is mapped by some researchers along the northeastern edge of the Dunnigan Hills (Harwood and Helley, 1987; USGS and CGS, 2006). However, the active fault has more recently been mapped to the southwest by Parrish (2018) and others and is considered more appropriate for evaluation of active and potentially active portion of the fault in this study. 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 5 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 faults in and around the Tahoe region, as well as faults associated with crustal extension of the Northwestern Basin and Range. Much further afield, the Cascadia subduction zone (northwest corner of the state) can generate very large magnitude events and may have the potential to impact long-period ground motions at the site.

There are a series of older faults and folds that underlie the central part of the Great Valley and include the possible southeastern extension of the Willows fault and the Stockton fault. The Willows and Stockton faults are generally accepted to be seismically inactive, with deformation along the southern end of the Willows fault (closest fault to the site) considered to be older than about 3.4 million years (Harwood and Helley, 1987). Along the western edge of the Sacramento Valley, the Thornton Arch4as well as the East and West Valley faults are, likewise, considered seismically inactive with the most recent activity generally considered pre-quaternary in age (Jennings and Bryant, 2010; Parrish, 2018). These inactive faults are not considered to be significant to hazard potential at the site and thus are not listed in Table 2 although they are shown on Figure 3 for completeness.

Table 2
Potentially Active or Active Quaternary Age or Younger Faults Within 125 Km of Site Name Name Name
Alexander fault Greenville fault Poorman Gulch fault
Antioch fault Haupt Creek fault Pope Creek fault
Ashland fault Hayward fault Putah Creek
Bad Ridge fault Highway 49 fault Putah Creek fault
Bartlett Springs fault zone Hunting Creek fault Red Road fault Bennett Valley fault Hunting fault Redwood Hill fault
Black Butte fault Ione fault Rescue fault
Bowie Flat fault Kennedy fault Resort fault
Burdell Mountain fault Kirby Hills fault Rio Vista fault Calaveras fault Konocti Bay fault Rodgers Creek fault
Carnegie fault Lagoon Valley fault San Joaquin fault
Chabot fault Lakeview fault Sherburne Hills thrust fault Chico Monocline fault Little Indian Valley fault Soda Creek fault Clayton fault Livermore fault Southampton fault
Cleveland Hill fault Los Positas fault Spenceville fault Clover Valley fault Maacama fault Swain Ravine fault
Cobb Mountain fault Maidu East fault Tolay fault
Concord fault Marsh Creek fault unnamed
Cordelia fault Maxwell Creek fault Vaca fault
Corning fault Midland fault Vernalis fault
Corral Hollow fault Midway fault Verona fault
Cross Spring fault Mill Valley fault Waters Peak fault
Deadman fault Miller Creek fault West Napa fault
4 Previous studies by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2007) have considered possible activity (probability of activity of 20 percent) along the Thornton Arch. However, Jennings and Bryant (2010) and other more recent studies by the various researchers have not considered this feature to be potentially active.
24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 6 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 Name Name Name
Dewitt fault Mocho fault Wildcat fault
Dunnigan Hills fault Moraga fault Williams fault
Franklin fault Northern Calaveras fault Wilson fault
Giant Gap fault Paynes Peak fault Youngs Creek fault
Green Springs Run fault Pinole fault
Green Valley fault Pleasanton fault
Notes:

Refer to Figure 3 for relative fault distances from project.

Historic Seismicity
One of the major factors for evaluation of seismic hazard is the historic record of seismicity. Patterns of historic seismicity can be used to identify known or inferred impacts of historical seismicity on a project.

Catalogs of historic seismicity are also used to characterize seismic sources in models such as those developed by Field et al. (2013) and others. This section discusses regional historic seismicity.

Kleinfelder compiled and reviewed data from the USGS ANSS Comprehensive Earthquake Catalog, known as ComCat, which contains historical seismic data compiled by the USGS from multiple sources. A search radius of 300 km centered on the site was used and yielded a record covering the years from 1808 to 2019.

Based on review of this data, the closest seismic events to the site are a set of minor events (Mw < 4) that occurred in 2002 located about 15 to 16 km northwest of the site. Another minor event occurred in 2003 located about 16 km to the southeast of the site. These events constitute the only recorded seismicity in the near-field vicinity (e.g. within about 15km) of the site and are small enough not to be of engineering significance.

More significant historic seismicity has been observed along some of the nearby active faults (see Figure 3). Historical seismicity along the Great Valley thrust fault system includes a cluster of low magnitude events near the south end of the Dunnigan Hills section. Other events along the Great Valley system include the 1892 (~Mw6.6) Vacaville-Winters sequence near the Gordon Valley section and the 1892 (Mw5.5) event near the Midland Fault (Unruh and Moores, 1992; USGS, 2019). The foothills fault system has also historically been active, with a large number of earthquakes observed near Oroville Dam (possibly reservoir induced seismicity) and significant micro-seismicity reported between Oroville and Folsom reservoirs, particularly near the Rocklin-Penryn pluton (e.g. Cramer et al, 1978).

Far-field events include a number of significant large earthquakes including the 1868 (Mw7.0) Hayward earthquake, the 1906 (Mw7.8) “Great” San Francisco earthquake, the 2014 (Mw6.0) South Napa earthquake, the 1838 (Mw7.4) San Francisco Peninsula earthquake, the 1865 (Mw6.5) Santa Cruz Mountains earthquake, and the 1989 (Mw6.9) Loma Prieta earthquake. These events are located on faults within the San Andreas fault system (Hayward, San Andreas, etc.). Review of the historic records indicates only minor impacts or damage from these events in the Sacramento region.

Intensity values such as Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) tend to provide an indication of the effect of historic seismicity on people and buildings and are useful in measuring the significance of events at a site. MMI values in this study were estimated using the relationship of Atkinson et al. (2014). The majority of the historic earthquake event data used in the evaluation was obtained from the USGS 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 7 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 National Seismic Hazard Map project de-clustered earthquake catalog (e.g. Petersen et al. 2014). A table of historically significant seismic events, based on MMI, is provided below in Table 3. The most significant events impacting the site from this evaluation are highlighted in bold. These include the 1892 Vacaville-Winters sequence (e.g. Great Valley fault system) and the 1906 “Great” San Francisco earthquake (e.g. San Andreas fault system).

The estimated MMI values were checked against historic data for select events. For a recent event, the MMI reported by the USGS from observations for the South Napa event was 3.5 and is consistent with the estimated MMI. Some older events have reported MMI values as high as VI to VII based on record review by the California Geological Survey (CGS, Historic Earthquake Online Database, accessed 2020).

However, it is likely that these higher MMI values are influenced by lower quality of construction generally prevalent at the time.

Table 3
Select and Significant Historic Earthquakes and
Estimated Historical Impact Potential Using MMI
Magnitude
(Mw)
Event Date Event Name/Location4
Estimated
MMI1,2

7.4 6/1/1838 San Francisco Peninsula IV

7.3 1/1/1852 Pyramid Lake IV

7.9 1/9/1857 Great Fort Tejon IV

7.0 10/21/1868 Hayward IV

6.0 5/19/1889 Near Collinsville IV

6.6 4/19/1892 Vacaville-Winters Earthquake V

6.4 3/31/1898 Mare Island IV

7.8 4/18/1906 “Great” San Francisco V

6.9 10/18/1989 Loma Prieta IV

6.0 8/24/2014 South Napa3IV
Notes:

1. Approx. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) developed using procedure of Atkinson et al. (2014).

2. MMI – IV- Light Shaking; V – Moderate Shaking; VI – Strong Shaking; VII – Very Strong Shaking; VIII – Severe Shaking; IX – Violent Shaking; X – Extreme Shaking (USGS.gov accessed 2020)

3. 2014 Napa earthquakes data from USGS earthquake hazards program (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ earthquakes/eventpage/nc72282711/executive).

4. Some events including Santa Cruz Mountains earthquake (1865), induced seismicity sequence near Oroville, and microseismicity, etc. not listed due to low impact/magnitude.

GMHA IMPLEMENTATION
To be consistent with previous work performed by URS and DWR for the Urban Levee Evaluations (ULE) project, the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) approach was selected to perform the GMHA for this study and estimate the ground motion parameters (typically peak ground and spectral accelerations), with some modifications in implementation based on current standards of practice for probabilistic evaluations in California (e.g., “Grand Inversion” approach). Only the probabilistic approach is used, which is consistent with requirements of ULDC, and as permitted by ER 1110-2-1806 §7d. 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 8 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 Existing Ground Motion Data
Previous development of ground motion parameters in the area was performed by URS in 2007 as part of the Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS), which was updated and expanded on in 2012 by URS as part of the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Urban Levee Evaluation (ULE) project. A 200-year return period seismic hazard map was developed for the ULE area, which encompasses the ULDC area.

The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis performed for the ULE area was based on the UCERF2 seismic source characterization. The ground motion parameters developed by URS consisted of peak horizontal acceleration for stiff soil condition where Vs30 was taken as 335 m/s (1100 ft/s), which typically occurs depths of 100 to 120 feet below the ground surface. In addition, associated earthquake magnitude was also estimated.

For this project the source characterization by others will be reviewed, where high-quality peer reviewed seismic source models are available. This will include studies performed by the United States Geological Survey applicable to the project region (e.g. Petersen et al. 2014, 2019), statewide studies performed as part of the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3 - Field et al., 2013). It is expected the UCERF3 characterization will be primarily used for this project due to its wide adoption in other work and for consistency with the deprecated UCERF2 model used in previous work by URS. Additionally, Petersen et al. (2014, 2019) models will be used for far-field seismic sources outside of California (e.g. Cascadia, etc.)
Analysis performed by URS in 2012 for ULE identified several potential seismic sources in the area that were not included in the UCERF2 model (i.e. Northern Midland fault zone). The UCERF3 model will be evaluated for inclusion of these sources.

Following evaluation of existing design ground motion data, segments of levee with either non-existent or out-of-date seismic data will be analyzed according to procedures described below.

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)
The PSHA approach that will be used to estimate the ground motion parameters (typically peak ground and spectral ground accelerations) is generally consistent with requirements of ULDC, with some modifications in implementation based on current standards of practice for probabilistic evaluations in California (e.g. “Grand Inversion” approach). The probabilistic approach is used in place of a deterministic approach as permitted by ER 1110-2-1806 §7d.

The PSHA uses a logic tree approach to account for epistemic uncertainty in the model, with aleatoric variability accounted for in the uncertainty associated with various models (e.g. GMM’s). The logic tree 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 9 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 is developed to account for uncertainties in the source models, ground motion models, and other items impacting the results. Important source characteristics include slip rates and fault lengths, magnitude and recurrence intervals of potential seismic events, distance from the site to the causative source, and other parameters. The effects of site soil conditions, and other considerations such as basin effects, can be accounted for using ground motion models (GMMs).

𝑃𝐸
(𝑧) = 1 −𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑒𝑥𝑝 (−𝑣(𝑧) ∗ 𝑡)
Different probabilities of exceedance may be selected, depending on the level of performance required.

The return period is essentially equivalent to the reciprocal of v(z).

The PSHA is conducted using three generalized steps that include the following.

1. Development of an appropriate seismic source model including source characterization, development of recurrence relationships, and appropriately capturing uncertainty

2. Selection of appropriate ground motion models (and site amplification models, if appropriate)

3. Conducting the calculation and processing the results The annual frequency of exceedance of a certain ground motion level can be found by summing the rates for all sources, N, with the rate for each source determined by summing over all magnitudes and source to site distances, and so forth. The annual frequency of occurrence of earthquakes of magnitude, mi, on seismic source, n, is λ(mi). The probability of an earthquake of magnitude, mi, on source, n, occurring at a certain distance, rj, from the site is P(R = rj | mi) while the probability that the ground motion level, z, will be exceeded is given as P(Z>z | mi,rj). Thus, mathematically the basic formulation for the annual frequency of exceedance, v(z), is given by (EM 1110-2-6050):
𝑣(𝑧) = ∑
𝑁
[ ∑
𝑀
𝜆(𝑚𝑖
) ∗ ∑
𝑅
𝑃(𝑚𝑖
) ∗ 𝑃(𝑚𝑖
, 𝑟𝑗)]
Modern computers make the above calculation, while computationally expensive, easily implementable at most sites. We will use the computer program HAZ (Powers, 2017) for our probabilistic analysis, which implements the above general equation. Uncertainties are accounted for within the source model using a logic tree approach and using multiple models, where appropriate. We note that HAZ does not currently provide the uncertainty bands (16th and 84th percentiles) and thus uncertainty bands will not be evaluated or presented.
24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 10 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 Seismic Source Model
The seismic source model for a site contains all information required to characterize potential seismic sources for use in evaluation of ground motion parameters. The source model typically includes information on the geometry (e.g. length, dip, depth, etc.), style of faulting, magnitude, and recurrence relationships for all potentially active seismic sources within a distance capable of significantly impacting a site. The source model used for this work is discussed below.

Detailed review of select nearby seismic sources was performed and included review of the Midland fault, Dunnigan Hills fault, Foothills fault system, and other nearby faults. Other faults are not discussed in detail, but discussion is available in the referenced literature:
• Midland fault - The Midland fault was not considered active by Petersen et al. (2008). However, DWR (2007) and follow on work by Unruh and Hitchcock (2009) conclusively showed ongoing activity along the Midland fault within the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. The Midland fault was characterized by DWR (2007) using a source zone to represent the northern portion of the Midland fault zone, while other later studies (Merriam, 2012; Petersen et al. 2019, etc.) generally considered this source adequately characterized using a linear fault source, and that approach was considered appropriate for this study.
• Dunnigan Hills fault - Consideration of an alternative placement of the Dunnigan Hills fault (east of the Dunnigan Hills), as was done by Merriam (2012), was not considered justified based on available geologic data.
• Thornton Arch - The Thornton arch zone, a potential seismic source identified by DWR (2007), was not modeled as an independent source by most other studies. This study likewise does not explicitly consider this as a potentially active fault source based on the lack of significant folding of the overlying Miocene age continental rocks, leading to the conclusion that the structure is pre-Miocene (e.g. Harwood and Helley, 1987).
• Foothills system - The Foothills fault system (Swain Ravine fault, Spenceville fault, Dewitt fault, etc.) was modeled as a source zone by some studies or as a fault source in more recent work for UCERF3. The fault source approach and characterization of UCERF3 (e.g. Swain RavineSpenceville Fault) was adopted in this study. • Other minor faults: Other nearby, potentially active faults (e.g. Vernalis Fault, Rio Vista Fault, Black Butte fault, etc.) were generally not considered significant to the hazard at the site. These sources were not considered as independent seismogenic sources and were more appropriately modelled by background seismicity.

We used the above characterization to review available source models and determine if any site-specific modification to the models was required.

We reviewed source characterization and seismic models developed by others where high-quality peer reviewed models were available. Available models reviewed for this work included studies performed by the USGS applicable to the project region (e.g., Petersen et al. 2019), which generally adopted the results of the statewide study performed as part of the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 11 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 Forecast (UCERF 3 - Field et al. 2013), and the regional study completed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for the Delta Risk Management Strategy project (California DWR, 2007).

Based on the above characterization and review of the available models, the source model developed by the USGS and published by Petersen et al. (2014, 2019) was generally found to provide adequate characterization of seismic sources and uncertainties identified for inclusion in the model. No sitespecific modification was needed for this study, and thus, the model of Petersen et al. (2014, 2019) was adopted for this work without change.

Within the Western United States (WUS) region, significant independent seismogenic sources within about 300 kilometers (km) of the site are included in the model as fault sources. Very large magnitude sources, such as the Cascadia subduction zone, are included out to 500 km. Minor, potentially active faults are generally not considered significant to the seismic hazard at the site. These sources were not considered as independent seismogenic sources and were more appropriately modelled by background seismicity. Recurrence intervals and slip rates used to develop the fault models are available in referenced literature and are based on the values developed by the UCERF 3 working group.

The adopted model uses two alternative fault models, Fault Model (FM) 3.1 and FM 3.2, from the branch-averaged UCERF 3 solution to model on-fault seismicity in California. Off-fault seismicity, also known as background seismicity, is modeled using gridded seismic sources developed for consistency with each fault model. Outside of California (e.g., Cascadia, etc.), source characterization developed by Petersen et al. (2014, 2019) was used.

The seismic source model used for this work within 325 km of the site is presented on Figure 4. An abbreviated overview of significant fault sources included in the source model within 100 km of the site is provided in Attachment A1. The attached table presents a simplification of the model used for this study and does not show how the model relaxes the assumption of segmentation and allows for multifault ruptures, with numerous possible combinations. For additional details of the characterization of individual sources and associated alternative models (e.g., FM 3.1 vs FM 3.2), the reader can refer to the documentation prepared by Petersen et al. (2014, 2019) and the associated referenced documents and reports.
‘Grand Inversion’ and Recurrence Rates
The earthquake recurrence rates used in the source model will be adopted as developed by the UCERF3 project, as implemented by Petersen et al. (2019) using the branch-averaged solutions of the ‘grand inversion’. This is a departure from the older standard of practice documented in EM 1110-2-6053 and Draft EM 1110-2-6000, which solves for the entire system of faults within California simultaneously.

The ‘grand inversion’ scheme developed by the UCERF3 project team, the results of which will be adopted in this work, ‘solved’ the on-fault and off-fault recurrence rates at a system level using a set of defined constraints including the spatial probability density of off-fault seismicity, slip rate balancing, paleoseismic even rate matching, fault smoothness constraint, regional magnitude frequency distribution constraints, and fault section specific magnitude frequency distribution constraints. In simple terms the ‘grand inversion’ solves for three things: large on-fault (supra-seismogenic) event rates; small, near-fault (subseismogenic) event rates; and truly off-fault (unassociated) event rates. The 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 12 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 supra-seismogenic ‘on-fault’ events are ultimately modeled using linear fault sources while the latter two categories (subseismogenic and off-fault) are considered ‘background seismicity’ and are modeled using spatially smoothed ‘grid’ of evenly spaced cells (a.k.a. gridded seismicity). The combined on-fault and off-fault solution set (fault system solution) used the logic tree solution framework shown in a generalized form on Figure 5. Our model implements the branch-averaged solutions.

The on-fault seismicity considers two potential alternative fault models, equally weighted, identified as fault model 3.1 (FM 3.1) and fault model 3.2 (FM 3.2). These fault models each contain a slightly different collections of fault traces that are broken into ‘segments’ for modeling purposes, with individual segments strung together during evaluation to create hundreds of thousands of potential fault-based ruptures or multi-rupture events. In our model, fault segments are modeled with the recurrence rates constrained during the ‘grand inversion’ by the UCERF2 ‘characteristic’ inversion branch (e.g. Schwartz and Coppersmith, 1984). Fault slip rates (deformations) are constrained by a combination of a ‘pure’ geologic deformation model and three other models that consider geologic and geodetic data including the average fault block model, NewKinema model, and Zeng-Shen model. The magnitude-area relationships used along with the associated slip-length models, as well as other solution constraints applied, are shown with weights on Figure 5 and are discussed in detail in Field et al. (2013) and associated publications.

Off-fault seismicity (e.g. background seismicity) recurrence rates are solved for simultaneously by the ‘grand inversion’. This off-fault background seismicity is intended to include all smaller earthquakes (Mw<~6.5) on major faults and earthquakes of all sizes that are not associated with known faults. The off-fault background seismicity considers spatial smoothing of a ‘grid’ of evenly spaced cells using the spatial probability density function (PDF) grids of off-fault seismicity from UCERF2 and UCERF3 (equally weighted), considering the regional constraints on the model including the total regional magnitudefrequency distribution (e.g. Gutenberg-Richter distribution), maximum off-fault magnitude, number of regional events per year greater than Magnitude 5, and other constraints as shown on the logic tree (see Figure 5). The branch-averaged, gridded seismicity solution for each fault model, as implemented by Petersen et al. (2019), was used in the source model for this work.

Ground Motion Model’s (GMM’s)
This study makes use of response spectral attenuation relationships, also known as ground motion models (GMMs), in evaluations at the site as required by ER 1110-2-1806.

Site-specific ground motions can be influenced by the styles of faulting, magnitudes of the earthquakes, and local soil conditions. Other effects such as near-source or basin effects can also influence the ground motions. The GMM’s used to estimate ground motion from an earthquake source need to directly or 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 13 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 indirectly consider these effects. Many GMMs have been developed to estimate the variation of spectral acceleration with earthquake magnitude and distance from the site to the source of an earthquake.

The Idriss (2014) model has not been used as it is not valid for the VS30 used in our study and also for the larger distances used in this study (e.g. more than 150 km). The far-field subduction events (e.g. from Cascadia megathrust) were modeled using the relationships of Atkinson and Macias (2009), Abrahamson et al. (2016), and Zhao et al. (2006) with equal weights applied, except that for slab events the Atkinson and Macias (2009) relationship was excluded. Spectral acceleration values are obtained by averaging the individual hazard results. These GMM’s provide ‘mean’ (RotD50) values of ground motions associated with magnitude, distance, site soil conditions, and mechanism of faulting. The uncertainty in the predicted ground motion was taken into consideration by including a magnitude dependent standard error in the probabilistic analysis.

Deep Sediment Impact on Response
The Sacramento Basin, while not typically considered a true basin for purposes of seismic evaluation, does contain deep sediments which can impact the response of the system. The Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014) and Chiou and Youngs (2014) GMMs include the depth to rock (Z) parameter to better predict ground motion in regions with deep sedimentary structure. The Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014) model uses the depth to shear wave velocity of 2.5 km/s (Z2.5) and the Chiou and Youngs (2014) model uses the depth to shear wave velocity of 1.0 km/s (Z1.0). The Z1.0 and Z2.5 values can be estimated by various sources, as discussed in next section. For Northern California locations, only the Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014) factor is applied, to account for deep sedimentary structure which is analogous to a ‘basin effect’.

Therefore, the basin effect on the response spectrum either at depth or at ground surface can be considered using the appropriate site-specific Z1.0 and Z2.5 values. Previous work on DRMS (DWR, 2007) determined that the response of the levees as more sensitive to ground potions with a period lower than 1 second, so the longer period motions where deep basin effects would be most pronounced are likely not significant to the levees of this project.

Control Points and Site Parameters
Evaluation of seismic hazard and model development for site specific studies is usually completed at a control point considered representative of a structure or facility. For this project, multiple control points across the project area are considered for evaluation of ground motions. Nine points along levee alignment are considered adequate as active faults are generally located at distance from the site, and thus, small differences due to control point location variation should be minimal. The control points will be used in evaluation of distance terms (rx, rjb, rrup) required for the selected GMM’s.

The above GMMs also use a set of site parameters to account for site effects and basin effects. For the NGA West 2 relationships, these include the average shear wave velocity in the upper 100 feet (30 meters, e.g. VS30), the depth to a layer with a Vs value of 3,280 feet per second (1,000 meters per second, e.g. Z1.0), and the depth a layer with Vs value of 8,200 feet per second (2.5 km/s, e.g. Z2.5). 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 14 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 The VS30 values were evaluated at depth based on data from previous reports and mapped values. for consistency with DMRS (DWR, 2007), ground motions were evaluated as a stiff soil condition where VS30 is taken as 335 m/s. it is understood that this condition typically occurs at a depth of about 100 to 120 feet below ground surface. Z1.0 and Z2.5 were developed considering various geologic factors and estimates from the NGA West 2 correlations to develop best estimate values.

The Z1.0 and Z2.5 parameters are intended to capture the basin effects on ground motion response at a given site. The Z1.0 and Z2.5 values were estimated utilizing the correlations developed for the NGA West 2 project, with justification per Petersen et al. 2019. The Z1.0 and Z2.5 values are estimated to be about

0.428 km and 1.55 km, respectively. We propose to use these values as inputs for the GMHA.

In summary, our recommended values of VS30, Z1.0, and Z2.5 are presented in Table 4 below. Further details about the development of the site parameters are presented in Attachment A2.

Table 4
Site Parameters
Point ID Latitude Longitude VS30
(m/s)
Z1.0
(km)
Z2.5
(km)
Natomas NE 38.8262 -121.5317
335 0.428 1.55
Natomas NW 38.7810 -121.6025
Natomas West 38.6904 -121.6325
Arcade Creek 38.6668 -121.4762
Confluence 38.5982 -121.5087
American River East 38.5921 -121.3344
Little Pocket 38.5293 -121.5288
Pocket 38.4989 -121.5578
SREL South 38.4447 -121.5002
Peak Horizontal Accelerations
The probabilistic geometric mean peak horizontal acceleration is taken as the geometric mean peak horizontal acceleration with a 200-year return period. The associated controlling earthquake magnitudes and distances are based on the results of the deaggregation analysis. These values are presented in Table 5. We have also provided PHA values from the previous studies for comparison in this table. It should be noted that earthquake magnitude 6.5 was used in the previous studies for the entire study area.
24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 15 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 Table 5
Probabilistic Peak Horizontal Acceleration and Controlling Earthquake Point ID
PHA (g) Deaggregation Results
(KLF, 2023) (DWR,
2015)
MW Distance (km)
Natomas NE 0.13 0.133 6.8 73
Natomas NW 0.14 0.144 6.8 65
Natomas West 0.15 0.160 6.7 58
Arcade Creek 0.13 0.139 6.8 72
Confluence 0.14 0.146 6.8 67
American River East 0.12 0.126 6.8 81
Little Pocket 0.14 0.152 6.7 63
Pocket 0.15 0.163 6.7 60
SREL South 0.15 0.148 6.7 62

CLOSING
This technical memorandum is for review by the subject project’s peer review panel for concurrence with the approach for the forthcoming Seismic Performance Summary Reports. This document is intended to be used as an appendix to the primary Seismic Performance Summary Report 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.

Ryan Hochstatter, EIT Zia Zafir, PE, GE
Staff Geotechnical Engineer Sr. Principal Geotechnical Engineer

ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 – Study Area
Figure 2 – Geologic Map
Figure 3 – Regional Faulting and Seismicity
Figure 4 – Seismic Source Model
Figure 5 – UCERF 3 Source Model Logic Tree
Attachment A1 – Significant Faults Included in Source Model Attachment A2 – Calculation Package – Shear Wave Velocity and Site Parameters 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 16 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701

Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J., and Kamai, R. (2014). “Summary of the ASK14 Ground Motion Relation for Active Crustal Regions.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1025-1056.

Bozorgnia, Y. and Campbell, K. (2016). Ground Motion Model for the Vertical-to-Horizontal (V/H) Ratios of PGA, PGV, and Response Spectra. Earthquake Spectra, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp. 951-978.

Bryant, W., Sander, E., and Wills, C. (2007). Digital Database for Concord and Green Valley Faults. Final Technical Report prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, USGS Award No. 05HQGR0029.

Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2014). United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Scenario Map, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/scenarios/catalog/, accessed July 2022.

California Department of Water Resources (2007). Technical Memorandum: Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) Phase 1 Topical Area: Seismology Final. Prepared by URS Corporation and Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc.

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

Cornell, C.A. (1968). Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 58, No. 5.

Cornell, C.A. (1971). Probabilistic Analysis of Damage to Structures Under Seismic Loading, Dynamic Waves in Civil Engineering, London, Interscience.

Cramer, C., Toppozada, T, and Park, D. (1978). Seismicity of the Foothills Fault System Between Folsom and Oroville, California.

Field, E.H., Biasi, G.P., Bird, P., Dawson, T.E., Felzer, K.R., Jackson, D.D., Johnson, K.M., Jordan, T.H., Madden, C., Michael, A.J., Milner, K.R., Page, M.T., Parsons, T., Powers, P.M., Shaw, B.E., Thatcher, W.R., Weldon, R.J., II, and Zeng, Y. (2013). The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture 24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 17 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF 3), USGS Open File Report 2013-1165, CGS Special Report 228, Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/.

Fugro William Lettis Associates (FWLA 2010). “Surficial Geologic Map of the NEMDC East Study Area.” Scale 1:20,000. Dated 2010
Graymer, R., Jones, D., Brabb, E. (2002). "Geologic Map and Map Database of Northeastern San Francisco Bay Region, California: Most of Solano County and parts of Napa, Marin, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Yolo, and Sonoma Counties". Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 2403.

Gülerce, Z. and Abrahamson, N.A. (2011). Site-Specific Design Spectra for Vertical Ground Motion, Earthquake Spectra 27(4), pages 1023-1047.

Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C.F. (1956). Earthquake Magnitude, Intensity, Energy and Acceleration, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 46, No. 2.

Gutierrez, C. I. (2011). “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Sacramento 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California,” California Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Maps PGM-11-06 (1:100,000 scale).

Harden, D. R. (1998). “California Geology.” Published by Prentice Hall.

Humphreys, E., and Coblentz, D. (2007). North American Dynamics and Western U.S. Tectonics.

American Geophysical Union, Reviews of Geophysics, 45, RG3001.

Hoffman, R. (1992). Structural Geology of the Concord Area. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Pacific Section Annual Convention.

Idriss, I. M. (2014). “An NGA-West2 Empirical Model for Estimating the Horizontal Spectral Values Generated by Shallow Crustal Earthquakes.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1155-1177.

Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W.A. (2010). Fault Activity Map of California. California Geologic Data Map Series Map No. 6.

Lienkaemper, J., Baldwin, J., Turner, R., Sickler, R., and Brown, J. (2013). A Record of Large Earthquakes during the Past Two Millennia on the Southern Green Valley Fault, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 2386-2403.

Merriam, M. (2012). Caltrans Fault Database V2a for ARS Online. Caltrans Fault Database V2 Report (http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/ARS_Online/technical.php)
Merz, H.L. and Cornell, C.A. (1973). Seismic Risk Analysis Based on a Quadratic Magnitude-Frequency Law, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 63, No. 6.

Parrish, J. (2018). Faulting in California. California Geological Survey Map Sheet 54.

Powers, P.M. (2017). National Seismic Hazard Model Project Computer Code (NSHMP-HAZ) Software, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZW1K31.
24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 Page 18 of 18 February 9, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 p | 916.366-1701 Schwartz, D.P. and Coppersmith, K.J. (1984). Fault Behavior and Characteristic Earthquakes: Examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas Fault Zones, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 89, pp. 5681-5698.

Stewart, J., Afshari, K., and Hashash, Y. (2014). Guidelines for Performing Hazard-Consistent OneDimensional Ground Response Analysis for Ground Motion Prediction. PEER Report 2014/16.

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

United States Geological Survey (USGS). Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States, https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/faults, accessed October 2023.

Unruh, J. and Hector, S. (1999). Subsurface Characterization of the Potrero-Ryer Island Thrust System, Western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Northern California.

Unruh, J. and Hitchcock, C. (2009). Characterization of Potential Seismic Sources in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. Final Technical Report prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. USGS Award No. 08HQGR0055.

Unruh, J., and Humphrey, J., 2017, Seismogenic Deformation Between the Sierran Microplate and Oregon Coast Block, California, USA. The Geological Society of America v. 45, no. 5, pp. 415-418 Unruh, J., Humphrey, J., and Barron, A., 2003, Transtensional Model for the Sierra Nevada Frontal Fault System, Eastern California. Geology v. 31, no. 3, pp. 327 – 330.

Wagner, D.L., Jennings, C.W., Bedrossian, T.L., and Bortugno, E.J. (1981). Geologic map of the Sacramento quadrangle, California, 1:250,000.

CALIFORNIA
70 ¨¦§5
¨¦§80
¨¦§80
¨¦§5
£¤50
ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
84 ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
16 ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
113
ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
160
ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
45 ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
99 ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
160
ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
99 ÃÆ

CALIFORNIA
99 ¨¦§80
Pocket
Natomas NW
SREL South
Confluence
Natomas NE
Arcade Creek
Natomas West
Little Pocket
American River East

STUDY AREA
PROJECT:

FILE NAME:

FIGURE
1 DRAWN:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:
24001006.001A
SEP 2023
M. RYAN
K. HAGAN
F1_SiteMap.mxd
Explanation
!( Analysis Control Point
Levee Alignment
SACRAMENTO, CA FILE: \\azrgisstorp03\GIS_Projects\Client\SAFCA\24001006.001A-ULDC_groundmotion\F1_SiteMap.mxd KHagan 9/21/2023 0 3 6
Kilometers
Locations are Approximate
£

SEISMIC EVALUATION GROUND MOTION

PARAMETER MEMORANDUM

ULDC & FEMA LEVEE CERTIFICATION PROJECT

SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY

LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar
Geographics, and the GIS User Community; 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.

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
PROJECT:

FILE NAME:

FIGURE
2 DRAWN:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:
24001006.001A
SEP 2023
M. RYAN
K. HAGAN
F2_Geology.mxd
Explanation
Levee Alignment
SACRAMENTO, CA FILE: \\azrgisstorp03\GIS_Projects\Client\SAFCA\24001006.001A-ULDC_groundmotion\F2_Geology.mxd KHagan 9/21/2023 0 3 6
Kilometers
Wagner, D.L., C.W. Jennings, T.L. Bedrossian, and
E.J. Bortugno, 1981, Geologic Map of the
Sacramento Quadrangle, California, 1:250,000,
California Division of Mines and Geology Regional
Geologic Map Series, Map No. 1A.

Locations are Approximate
£

SEISMIC EVALUATION GROUND MOTION

PARAMETER MEMORANDUM

ULDC & FEMA LEVEE CERTIFICATION PROJECT

SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY

LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
#
# ##
#
##
#
#
#
# #
%
%
%
%
%
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
@ @ @ @
@ @ @ @
@ @ @
@ @ @
Qmr
Qr
Qb
Qa
Qm Modesto Formation
Riverbank Formation
Modesto-Riverbank Formations
Basin deposits
Levee and channel deposits
Historic displacement (< 150 years)
Mapped Fault Location
Dashed were Approximated
! ! ! ! Concealed
Holocene displacement (< 15,000 years)
Mapped Fault Location
Dashed were Approximated
! ! ! ! Concealed
Late Quaternary displacement (< 750,000 years)
Mapped Fault Location
Dashed were Approximated
! ! ! ! Concealed
Quaternary & unspecified displacement
(< 1,600,000 years)
undifferentiated Quaternary Well Constrained
undifferentiated Quaternary Moderately Constrained
! ! ! ! undifferentiated Quaternary Inferred
Pre-Quaternary geologic structures (CGS, 2010)
Mapped Fault Location
Dashed were Approximated
! ! ! ! Concealed
ANSS Earthquakes
Magnitude

4.0 - 4.9

4.9 - 5.9

5.9 - 6.9

6.9 - 7.9

7.9 - 8.9
125
Kilom
ete
r
R
a
diu
s
Project
Location
Willows fault
Thornton Arch
Stockton fault
East Valley fault
West Valley fault
Capay fault
Sweitzer fault
West Napa fault
Chabot fault
Serra fault
Lagoon Valley fault
Black Butte fault
Round Valley fault zone
Williams fault
Miller Creek fault
Antioch fault Corral Hollow fault
Hayward fault
Mohawk Valley fault
Rodgers Creek fault
Franklin fault
Dollar Point fault
Dog Valley fault
Clover Valley fault
Alexander fault
Greenville fault
Cross Spr ni g fault
Spenceville fault
Soda Creek fault
Pilarcitos fault
Wildcat fault
Cordelia fault
Crosley fault
Pinole fault
Etsel Ridge fault
Mocho fault
Maacama fault Maacama fault
Canada fault
Concord fault
Polaris fault
Calaveras fault
Rio Vista fault
Clayton fault
Mission fault
G ai nt Gap fault
Stoney Creek fault
Resort fault
Dunnigan Hills faul
H
t
ealdsburg fault
Bad Ridge fault
Pleasanton fault
Ione fault
Putah Creek
Cobb Mountain fault
Maidu East fault
Swain Ravine fault
Adobe Creek fault
Tolay fault
Green Springs Run fault
Chianti fault
Waters Peak fault
San Joaquin fault
Big Valley fault
Dewitt fault
San Jose fault
Poorman Gulch fault
San Andreas fault
Rescue fault
Seal Cove fault
Hunting fault
Bloomfield fault
Hot Springs Shear zone Vaca fault
Paynes Peak fault
Stanford fault
Youngs Creek fault
Corning fault
Vernalis fault
San Gregorio fault
Point Reyes fault
Midland fault
120°0'0"W
120°0'0"W
121°30'0"W
121°30'0"W
123°0'0"W
123°0'0"W
39°0'0"N
39°0'0"N
37°30'0"N
37°30'0"N
PROJECT NO:

CREATED:

CREATED BY:

CHECKED BY:

FILE NAME:

FIGURE
Quaternary Faults (Jennings and Bryant, 2010)
£
2/7/2024
ALeonard
F3_RegionalSeismic.mxd
Date: 2/7/2024 User: ALeonard Path: \\azrgisstorp03\GIS_Projects\Client\SAFCA\24001006.001A-ULDC_groundmotion\F3_RegionalSeismic.mxd

REGIONAL FAULTING

AND SEISMICITY
MRyan 3
0 20 40 80
Kilometers
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 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.

BASEMAP SOURCE:

Esri ArcGIS Online World Topography Map

SEISMIC EVALUATION GROUND MOTION

PARAMETER MEMORANDUM

ULDC & FEMA LEVEE CERTIFICATION PROJECT

SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY

LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
24001006.001A
Seismic Responsibility Reach
Faults, National Seismic Hazard Map
(NSHM), 2014
normal
strike slip
thrust
unassigned
Levee Alignment
32 5 K ilom ete r R adius
Pacific
Ocean
Project
Location
Duck F al t fault
Great Valley 12
Great Valley 02
Deep Springs
Dry
Mountain
Lost Hills
Fairview fault zone
Pittville 2011 CFM
M di d el gate fault zone
Last Chance
Round Valley
West Napa 2011 CFM
Great Valley 01
Antelope Valley 2011
Little Salmon (Offshore)
Airport Lake
Table Bluff
Greenville (No) 2011 CFM
Carson Range fault
Grass Valley fault zone
Zayante-Vergeles
West Tahoe
Hayward (So) 2011 CFM
Point Reyes 2011 CFM
Ortigalita (South)
Mohawk Valley 2011 CFM
Coaldale fault 1 Great Valley 07 (Orestimba)
Battle Creek 2011 CFM
Honey Lake 2011 CFM Ra ni bow Mounta ni fault zone Independence rev 2011 Pyramid Lake fault zone
Black Rock fault zone
Ione Valley fault
So Sierra Nevada
Hosgri
Russ 2011 CFM
Trinidad (alt1)
Rinconada 2011 CFM
Likely 2011 CFM
Buena Vista Valley fault zone Smith Valley fault
Eaton Roughs 2011 CFM
Hat Creek-McArthur-Mayfield
Owens Valley
White Mountains
Dixie Valley fault zone
Wassuk Range fault zone
San Andreas (Creeping Section) 2011 CFM
Mendocino
Reliz 2011 CFM
San Gregorio (North) 2011 CFM
San Andreas (Offshore) 2011 CFM
Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM
San Andreas (North Coast) 2011 CFM
Maacama 2011 CFM
118°30'0"W
118°30'0"W
120°0'0"W
120°0'0"W
121°30'0"W
121°30'0"W
123°0'0"W
123°0'0"W
124°30'0"W
124°30'0"W
40°30'0"N
40°30'0"N
39°0'0"N
39°0'0"N
37°30'0"N
37°30'0"N
36°0'0"N
36°0'0"N
£
Date: 9/21/2023 User: KHagan Path: \\azrgisstorp03\GIS_Projects\Client\SAFCA\24001006.001A-ULDC_groundmotion\F4_SeismicSource.mxd 0 50 100 200
Kilometers
BASEMAP SOURCE:

Esri ArcGIS Online World Topography Map
PROJECT NO:

CREATED:

CREATED BY:

CHECKED BY:

FILE NAME:

FIGURE
9/21/2023
KHagan
F4_SeismicSource.mxd

SEISMIC SOURCE MODEL
BASED ON UCERF3
MRyan 4 SEISMIC EVALUATION GROUND MOTION

PARAMETER MEMORANDUM

ULDC & FEMA LEVEE CERTIFICATION PROJECT

SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY

LEVEE SYSTEMS

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
24001006.001A
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 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.

24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 February 9, 2024
© 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
ATTACHMENT A1

SIGNIFICANT FAULTS INCLUDED IN SOURCE MODEL
___________________________________________________________________________________ Used in Used in Section
FM 3.1? FM 3.2? Mmax
3 Great Valley 03a Dunnigan Hills 27 20 3 6 TRUE TRUE 6.6 Great Valley 06 (Midland) 2011 CFM alt1 69 47 1 15 TRUE FALSE 7.3 Great Valley 04a Trout Creek 19 20 9 14 TRUE TRUE 6.6
Great Valley 03 Mysterious Ridge 51 20 9 14 TRUE TRUE 7.1 Great Valley 04b Gordon Valley 28 20 9 14 TRUE TRUE 6.8 Great Valley 06 Midland alt2 33 30 2 16 FALSE TRUE 7.2
Swain Ravine - Spenceville 103 60 0 12 TRUE TRUE 7.4
Great Valley 05 Pittsburg Kirby Hills alt2 32 90 10 20 FALSE TRUE 6.7 Great Valley 05 Pittsburg - Kirby Hills alt1 21 55 0 10.8 TRUE FALSE 6.6 Hunting Creek - Berryessa 2011 CFM 44 90 0 10.6 TRUE TRUE 6.9 Green Valley 2011 CFM 43 84 0 14 TRUE TRUE 7
Hunting Creek - Bartlett Springs connector 2011 38 90 0 12 TRUE TRUE 6.9 Los Medanos - Roe Island 21 39 0 14 TRUE TRUE 6.9
West Napa 2011 CFM 44 75 0 13.2 TRUE TRUE 7
Concord 2011 CFM 18 90 0 15 TRUE TRUE 6.6
Contra Costa (Lake Chabot) 2011 CFM 4 90 0 11.1 FALSE TRUE 5.9 Contra Costa Shear Zone (connector) 2011 CFM 30 81 0 12.9 TRUE FALSE 6.8 Clayton 16 90 0 16 TRUE TRUE 6.6
Contra Costa (Dillon Point) 2011 CFM 11 90 0 12.5 FALSE TRUE 6.3 Contra Costa (Vallejo) 2011 CFM 4 77 0 11 FALSE TRUE 5.8 Contra Costa (Ozal - Columbus) 2011 CFM 9 90 0 13.2 FALSE TRUE 6.3 Great Valley 02 22 15 7 9.6 TRUE TRUE 6.5
Franklin 2011 CFM 38 90 0 13.2 TRUE TRUE 6.9
Contra Costa (Southampton) 2011 CFM 11 80 0 14 FALSE TRUE 6.4 Contra Costa (Briones) 2011 CFM 9 90 0 12.9 FALSE TRUE 6.3 Greenville (No) 2011 CFM 51 84 0 14.9 TRUE TRUE 7.1
Collayami 2011 CFM 35 90 0 10 TRUE TRUE 6.7
Contra Costa (Larkey) 2011 CFM 8 90 0 15 FALSE TRUE 6.3 Contra Costa (Reliez Valley) 2011 CFM 6 90 0 14.7 FALSE TRUE 6.1 Bennett Valley 2011 CFM 33 90 0 10 TRUE TRUE 6.7
Mount Diablo Thrust North CFM 19 40 1 13.5 TRUE FALSE 6.8 Contra Costa (Lafayette) 2011 CFM 8 90 0 14.6 TRUE TRUE 6.3 Rodgers Creek - Healdsburg 2011 CFM 82 77 0 12 TRUE TRUE 7.3 Mount Diablo Thrust 25 38 8 16 FALSE TRUE 6.7
Hayward (No) 2011 CFM 53 82 0 11.1 TRUE TRUE 7
Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM 164 90 0 14.5 TRUE TRUE 7.6
Calaveras (No) 2011 CFM 48 80 0 14 TRUE TRUE 7
Maacama 2011 CFM 175 63 0 10.9 TRUE TRUE 7.6
Great Valley 07 (Orestimba) 66 20 7 9.6 TRUE TRUE 7
Great Valley 01 44 15 7 9.6 TRUE TRUE 6.8
Mount Diablo Thrust South 11 40 1 13.5 TRUE FALSE 6.5
Hayward (So) 2011 CFM 54 76 0 13.4 TRUE TRUE 7.1
San Andreas (North Coast) 2011 CFM 171 90 0 11 TRUE TRUE 7.5 FAULT SECTION ID Length
(km)
Ave Dip
(Deg)
Upper Seis.

Depth (km)
Lower Seis.

Depth (km)
24001006.001A/SAC23M158525_R2 February 9, 2024
© 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
ATTACHMENT A2
CALCULATION PACKAGE – SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY AND SITE PARAMETERS ___________________________________________________________________________________ Project Name: SACFA ULDC/FEMA
Project Number: 24001006.001A
Revision History:

Version Analyzed By Date Reviewed By Date
0 M. Ryan 9/13/2023 Zia Zafir 9/14/2023
References:

Initial Evaluation
Purpose:

Analysis Type:

Site specific seismic hazard analysis for SAFCA ULDC/FEMA levee certification HAZ for PSHA
Notes
See Report and updated model sheet for results
Site characterization only in this sheet
KLF No. 24001006.001A
Latitude 36.652563
Longitude -121.811094
Background Information:

Summary:

Site-Specific Site Characteristics
Vs30 (m/s) Z1 (m) 1
Z2.5 (km) 2
335 0.428 1.55
Notes

1. Per Abrahamson-et al (2014) NGA West 2

2. Per Campbell-Bozorgnia (2014) NGA West 2
Vs30 estimated for stiff soils, typically occuring at depth of about 100 to 120ft below ground surface; consistent with analysis by URS for previous certification in 2007
Z1.0 and Z2.5 considered using NGA W2 relationships - justification per Petersen et al. 2019 NGA W2
(HAZ code uses Z1.0 and Z2.5 in km,
values used shown above)
24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page C-1 September 10, 2024
© 2024 Kleinfelder

APPENDIX C
SECTION 6, SEISMIC ANALYSIS, GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES, URBAN LEVEE

EVALUATIONS PROJECT
_____________________________________________________________________

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
for Geotechnical Analyses
Urban Levee Evaluations Project
Contract 4600008101
April 2015
Prepared for:

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Division of Flood Management
3464 El Camino Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95821
Prepared by:
2870 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95833
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS

6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
The simplified screening-level seismic vulnerability assessment procedures presented in this section were developed specifically for the geologic and seismic conditions of ULE study areas. This procedure may not apply to other regions where geology, levee configurations, or intensity and durations of shaking differ from ULE study areas. A large number of abbreviated terms are used in this seismic analysis section. See the list of acronyms and abbreviations in the Table of Contents for definitions of terms.

This section presents general guidelines for performing a screening-level seismic vulnerability analysis for levees in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems.

Guidelines are presented for performing soil liquefaction triggering analysis, post-seismic slope stability analysis, and, as necessary, seismic deformation analyses and using the results from these analyses to then assign a seismic vulnerability class to each levee segment, or part thereof, in a study region.

ULE analysts should perform seismic vulnerability analyses using a 200-year return period seismic event and the higher of either the average summer or winter WSE. The flow chart shown in Figure 6-1 illustrates the general process for performing seismic vulnerability analyses for ULE intermittently-loaded levees. Intermittently-loaded levees are defined in ULDC1 (DWR, 2012) as levees that do not experience a water surface elevation of 1 foot or higher above the elevation of the landside levee toe at least once a day for more than 36 days per year on average. Intermittently-loaded levees have been identified as being present in the Urban study areas and the liquefaction triggering analyses and seismic vulnerability analyses results for these levees will be presented in each study area’s GER in Volume 2.

The purpose of the seismic vulnerability analysis is to estimate vertical deformation, which is then used to assign a seismic vulnerability class to a seismic segment (Table 6-1). The seismic segment(s) and analysis cross section(s) should be selected based on liquefaction triggering analysis results, available topography and bathymetry, distance to river/channel, levee geometry, and existing and/or planned mitigation measures. The seismic vulnerability analysis sections representing levee segments with potential liquefaction may be selected independent of reaches evaluated for static conditions and could be representative of multiple reaches or segments.

For levee segments assessed as having liquefiable layers, two conditions may exist: the segment may meet all static ULE criteria, or the segment may require one or more static remedial alternatives. For those segments meeting all static ULE criteria, ULE analysts should perform a seismic vulnerability analysis as described in this section under existing conditions for the segment. For those segments requiring one or more static remedial alternatives, those alternatives must meet ULE criteria, and will be verified and assumed to be in place prior to performing seismic vulnerability analysis. ULE analysts should then perform seismic vulnerability analyses under applicable static conditions (i.e., either existing conditions, or ULE’s selected static remedial alternative). 1 See Appendix C for the Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC) (DWR, 2012). 20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-1 Issue Date: April 2015

SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
For the frequently-loaded levees which are present in several Urban-Non-Project study areas, ULE analysts should use the guidance defined in ULDC (DWR, 2012) Sections 7.6 and 7.7.2, and the protocol presented in Section 6.11 will be followed. The seismic vulnerability evaluation will be performed under existing conditions and presented in Volume 1 of the GERs. For frequently-loaded levee segments that do not meet seismic vulnerability criteria, seismic remedial alternatives will be identified, evaluated, costed, and presented in Volume 2 of the GERs. Remediation for seismic vulnerability is only performed for frequentlyloaded levees.

The overall methodology for seismic evaluations is based on a study by the Seismic Evaluation and Methodology Group as described in the Levee Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodology Report (URS, 2008). It is also based on subsequent recommendations from the ICB and seismic panel members (ICB, 2013; Balakrishnan and Perlea, 2013), respectively.

ULE seismic vulnerability assessments are based on empirical procedures developed for a screening-level evaluation. Future protocols, if necessary, for the design and implementation of any seismic remedial alternative should be based on more detailed site investigation, site characterization, and site-specific analytical procedures. Such additional studies should more precisely define the extent of mitigation required, and should reduce the scope and cost of mitigation. Additional site characterization and analyses may indicate remedial alternatives are not required.

6.1 Seismic Analysis Objective
The objectives of the seismic screening analyses are to:
 Evaluate, under existing conditions, the potential for liquefaction of the levee and/or the underlying foundation materials during a 200-year return period seismic event  Identify soft soils2 in the levee and/or the underlying foundation materials  Prepare longitudinal profiles of potentially liquefiable layers  Select levee segment boundaries for seismic vulnerability analysis  Identify and develop representative cross sections for seismic vulnerability assessments  Perform post-earthquake static and pseudo-static slope stability analyses  Evaluate seismically-induced deformation and resulting freeboard loss at the levee crown. Note that ULE analysts will make this assessment under existing conditions if no static remedial alternative(s) are needed, or will make the assessment with the selected static remedial alternative in place.
2 For ULE screening level seismic evaluation, soft soil is defined as a non-free-draining soil with estimated shear strength of less than 500 psf. This is not the same as “soft” soil defined for static stability analyses in Section 5.9.4
20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-2 Issue Date: April 2015

SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
 Based on the amount of freeboard loss due to seismic deformation, categorize the relative seismic vulnerability of levee segments using a three-tiered system, as defined in Table 6-1. The three vulnerability classes are:
− Low vulnerability
− Medium vulnerability
− High vulnerability
 For frequently-loaded levees only, if a high vulnerability categorization is identified, then the additional efforts defined in Section 6.11 will be implemented.

6.2 WSE Conditions
ULE analysts should evaluate the seismic performance of levees along river systems using the higher of either the average summer or winter WSE when assessing liquefaction evaluation, seismic slope stability, and slope deformation. For levees along bypasses, or in other locations where water is not always present, the WSE should be set based on an evaluation of WSEs in adjacent segments, or groundwater levels. In the absence of such data, ULE analysts should use the WSE at either the waterside or landside levee toe elevation, based on engineering judgment.

For frequently-loaded levees, ULE analysts should use the WSE that is the mean high tide level on the waterside and the higher of either the winter or summer WSE on the landside.

Note that boring and CPT data used during liquefaction triggering analyses are corrected for groundwater depth at the time of exploration.

ULE analysts should consult with the Regional Technical Lead and ULE Task Order Manager when selecting WSEs along bypasses or at other locations where WSE information is not available.

6.3 Seismic Loading Conditions
ULE analysts should assess liquefaction and subsequent seismic vulnerability for one seismic loading condition: a 200-year return period seismic event. Figure 6-2 shows the peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) contours for ULE study areas under stiff soil conditions (i.e., shear wave velocity Vs,30 of 335 meter/second). The PHAs shown in Figure 6-2 correspond to 200year levels of peak horizontal acceleration that would occur on relatively stiff soils at depths typically on the order of 100 feet to 120 feet throughout ULE study areas (URS, 2012). Appendix K presents more background information and a discussion how Figure 6-2 was developed.

Amplification of these acceleration levels as they propagate upward through shallower foundation soils of lesser stiffness, and interactions of levee embankments with these motions, is addressed by representative analyses of two-dimensional dynamic response models that include both levees and foundation soils. The computer program QUAD4M was used to perform two-dimensional site response analyses. 20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-3 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS

6.4 Criteria
ULE seismic vulnerability criteria for intermittently-loaded levees, summarized in Table 6-1, and frequently-loaded levees, summarized in Table 6-6, are based on a levee’s postseismic-event flood protection ability. Seismic vulnerability is estimated based on:
 The estimated amount of vertical deformation relative to landside levee height  Potential damage to internal structures (e.g., cutoff walls, etc.)  Potential for cracking of the levee embankment
 Remaining freeboard (10-year WSE +3 feet) after seismic deformation Table 6-1 Criteria for Seismic Vulnerability of Intermittently-Loaded Levees Amount of Crown2
Displacement Relative to
Landside Levee Height
(percent)
Potential for
Significant Damage to
Internal Structures
(e.g., Cutoff Walls)
Remaining Freeboard 2
for Post Seismic
Evaluation (10-Year
Flood WSE +3 feet) 3
Vulnerability
Class4 (PostSeismic Flood
Protection Ability)
< 10 No >0.3 m (1 foot) Low Vulnerability
<20 Possibly Between 0 and >0.3 m (1 foot) Medium Vulnerability ≥20
(Flow Slide Condition)
Yes None High Vulnerability
Note:
1 This table applies to intermittently-loaded levees. See Section 6.11 for information about frequently-loaded levees. 2 Vertical crown displacements can be estimated at 0.7 times the deviatoric deformation from simplified deformation analysis (such as Newmark type displacement), and by adding volumetric displacement as applicable. 3 Based on ULDC criteria for intermittently-loaded levees (Section 7.7.1 of ULDC [DWR, 2012]). 4 Analyses results must pass each of the criteria in the first three columns of the table at a given vulnerability class (the last column), or the corresponding segment should be rated at the next higher vulnerability class.

Although a segment’s seismic vulnerability class will be documented in each study area’s GER Volume 2, no seismic remedial alternative or associated cost will be established in the GER for what ULDC defines as intermittently-loaded levees. See Section 6.11 of this Guidance Document and Sections 7.6 and 7.7.2 of ULDC for seismic assessment of frequently-loaded levees.

6.5 Software

6.5.1 Liquefaction Potential
Two Microsoft Excel liquefaction-triggering analysis spreadsheets were developed for ULE.

The two spreadsheets are for SPT-based and CPT-based liquefaction triggering analyses, and correspond to the methodologies described in Section 6.7. Examples of the spreadsheets are in Appendix J.

When assessing liquefaction, ULE analysts should be aware that the CPT-based liquefaction spreadsheet may classify some fine-grained soils as liquefiable. In such cases, additional information regarding soil properties, including SPT blow counts within the same layer, Atterberg limits and moisture content test results (Section 6.7.1), are required to screen CPTbased liquefaction assessment results. This screening can be difficult and uncertain, as 1 20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-4 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
such, ULE analysts should place more emphasis on SPT interpretations and material classification from laboratory test data. Therefore, SPT borings drilled under ULE should be selected as the primary source of data for liquefaction analyses. CPT and historical boring data should be considered a secondary data source, and should be used primarily to support evaluation of the longitudinal extents of liquefaction potential (Section 6.7.3).

Given the caveats described above, CPT data can be used to:
 Extrapolate the continuity of liquefiable strata based on engineering judgment and SPT liquefaction triggering analysis results at selected locations.  Identify zones as non-liquefiable that have high CPT tip resistance.  Perform liquefaction triggering analyses if no SPT data are available or if SPT data are limited.

6.5.2 Slope Stability Analyses
ULE analysts should perform seismic slope stability analyses using SLOPE/W (2007 and later versions), which is a two-dimensional limit equilibrium slope stability analysis software program developed by GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. (http://www.geoslope.com). ULE analysts should use the Spencer’s Method approach, which satisfies both moment equilibrium and force equilibrium, for all slope stability analyses. ULE analysts may consider using other slope stability analysis software, including UTEXAS4, upon approval of DWR’s Task Order Managers.

6.6 Analysis Approach
The overall methodology for seismic evaluation is based on the study presented in the Levee Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodology Report (URS, 2008). In essence, liquefaction triggering and seismic vulnerability assessment are based primarily on six types of data or information:
 200-Year PHA hazard map (Figure 6-2)
 Cyclic shear stress (Ƭmax) charts (Figure 6-3)
 Recommended Kmax vs. Input Motion PHA (Figure 6-4)
 Yield acceleration (Ky) estimation (Section 6.8.4)
 Recommended Newmark Displacement vs. Ky/Kmax relationship (Figure 6-5)  Seismic vulnerability classification (Table 6-1)
The following sections describe the procedures for using these six types of information to perform screening-level assessments of liquefaction and seismic vulnerability.

6.7 Liquefaction Triggering Analyses
Liquefaction triggering analyses evaluate whether or not the levee and/or the underlying foundation materials could be susceptible to liquefaction during a 200-year return period seismic event. In some cases, liquefaction triggering analyses results will also be used to estimate the post-seismic strengths of materials for use in seismic slope stability analysis. 20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-5 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
ULE analysts should implement the following process to assess liquefaction potential (Figure 66).

6.7.1 Perform Liquefaction Potential Assessment
For the purpose of ULE, levee soils located at certain depths are not considered critical for seismic performance, and can be removed from liquefaction potential analysis. ULE analysts should use the following criteria to identify the depth of soils that are not located within the vertical liquefaction assessment zone for ULE:
 All unsaturated soils located above the analysis WSE defined in Section 6.2, and  All soils located below the greater of the following depths:
− 50 feet below the landside levee toe,
− Two times the levee height (measured at landside) below the landside levee toe, or − Bottom of the river channel.

If the soil layer susceptible to liquefaction continues below the bottom of the evaluation depth, the full depth of the liquefiable layer will be evaluated.

In the vertical liquefaction assessment zone, analysts can then screen out soils not susceptible to liquefaction based on the following criteria3 :
 All soils with (N1)60-cs ≥ 23 or qC,1mod ≥ 10 MPa or 100 tsf  All soils classified as CH or MH
 For intermittently-loaded levees, all soils classified as CL, as well as soils classified as ML with any of the following:
− Plasticity Index ≥ 10 (See Figure 6-7)
− Liquid Limit ≥ 35
− Water Content ≤ 0.8 x (Liquid Limit)4
 For frequently-loaded levees, soils classified as CL or ML with any of the following:
− Plasticity Index ≥ 10 (See Figure 6-7)
− Liquid Limit ≥ 35
− Water Content ≤ 0.8 x (Liquid Limit)4
 Compacted, fine-grained soils used for remedial alternatives described in each study area’s GER Volume 2
 Clayey sand (SC) with greater than 20 percent fines
3 See the list of Acronyms and Abbreviations in the Table of Contents for definitions of terms used here. 4 The water content for comparison with liquid limit should be the saturated water content. There is a potential for the water content of soil samples collected in the field to be lower than that at the time of a seismic event. Analysts should consider this during their assessment and apply engineering judgment as necessary.
20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-6 Issue Date: April 2015

SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Atterberg limits and water content tests are very important in the evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils. Accurate field and laboratory classification of ML, CL and CL-ML soils can be very difficult and high quality Atterberg limit testing should be implemented to support, and as appropriate, override field classification in any design level seismic analyses.

In the absence of Atterberg limits test results for a fine-grained layer in this screening study, ULE analysts should use engineering judgment when considering fines contents and the nature of the fines. In general, soils field-classified as CL, CH, or MH can be considered unlikely to liquefy, but soils field-classified as ML or CL-ML should be considered potentially liquefiable, depending on the reported density.

If, based on the above criteria, the levee embankment and/or foundation materials are not considered susceptible to liquefaction and are not soft soils5 the materials may be classified as non-liquefiable, irrespective of earthquake loading. Soils not meeting the above criteria should be considered susceptible to liquefaction and should be assessed using the analyses discussed in Section 6.7.2.

The next step is to identify representative exploration locations and data for liquefaction triggering assessment. ULE analysts should review soil boring and CPT data and select an appropriate number of explorations for analysis to assess the liquefaction potential in the study area. For example, if the stratigraphy in a segment is generally uniform in terms of soil types and properties, one or two exploration locations may be sufficient for assessment.

Analysts should consider both toe and crown explorations.

ULE analysts should use the geologic plans and profiles for a GER study area to help select the number and location of explorations for analysis. Once ULE analysts have identified explorations for liquefaction triggering analysis, analysts should consult with the Regional Technical Lead and ULE Task Order Manager prior to performing analysis for the selected explorations.

6.7.2 Perform Liquefaction Potential Analyses
As noted, two Microsoft Excel liquefaction triggering spreadsheets (one SPT-based and one CPT-based) have been developed for use during ULE-wide evaluation of liquefaction potential and are based on the project-specific methodology developed for ULE. The SPTbased liquefaction spreadsheet was developed in accordance with the procedure recommended by Cetin et al. (2004). The CPT-based liquefaction spreadsheet was developed in accordance with the procedure recommended by Moss et al. (2006). The CPTbased correlations of Moss et al. (2006) are compatible with the SPT-based method Cetin et al. (2004). Examples of these spreadsheets are in Appendix J.

The spreadsheets calculate the factor of safety against liquefaction (FSL), which is equal to the ratio of the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) to the cyclic stress ratio (CSR). Required parameters for input to calculate the cyclic stress ratio are:
5 For ULE screening level seismic analyses, soft soil is defined as a non-free-draining soil with estimated shear strength of less than 500 psf. This is not the same as “soft” soil defined for static stability analysis in Section 5.9.4.
20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-7 Issue Date: April 2015

SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
 PHA
 Maximum shear stress (Ƭmax)
6 , which is embedded in the spreadsheet
 Effective overburden stress (σ′v) at the analyses WSE (i.e., the higher of either the winter or summer average)
 Location (crown, landside, or waterside)
Figure 6-2 shows the PHA contours for ULE study areas for a stiff soil condition (Vs,30=335 m/s).

The cyclic shear stress (Ƭmax) values, embedded in the ULE liquefaction triggering spreadsheets, are based on two-dimensional site response analyses developed for three general locations along a levee cross section: the waterside toe, the center of crown, and the landside toe. As documented in the Levee Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodology Report (URS, 2008), a range of ground motions for a stiff soil condition (Vs,30=335 m/s) was applied to the base of a two-dimensional cross section profile of representative levees and foundation soil conditions approximately 120 feet deep. The two-dimensional site response analyses calculated sitedependent amplification of the input motions based on the effects of the overlying stratigraphy and the topography of the levee embankments.

These two-dimensional site response analyses were performed with a WSE 10 feet below the crown elevation and with a straight line phreatic surface to the landside toe of the levee.

Considering these WSEs may be higher than the seismic analysis WSEs in many ULE study areas, ULE analysts should calculate CSR values using cyclic shear stress (Ƭmax) values from the two-dimensional site response analyses and site-specific effective overburden stress (σ′v) corresponding to the analysis WSE. The representative CSR values are calculated in the liquefaction triggering spreadsheet using the following equation:

CSR = 0.65 x Ƭmax / σ′v
Charts of cyclic shear stress values (Ƭmax) for each of the three locations are shown in Figure 6-3. These charts are also built into the SPT and CPT liquefaction evaluation spreadsheets to calculate cyclic stress values once the PHA and location are entered into the spreadsheets.

As shown in Figure 6-4, for borings or CPTs waterward of a point one-third up the waterside slope of the levee, ULE analysts should use waterside curves. For borings or CPTs located landward of a point one-third up the landside slope of the levee, ULE analysts should use the landside curves. For borings or CPTs one-third up the waterside and landside slopes, or on the levee’s crown, ULE analysts should use the curves for the levee crown.

Cyclic resistance ratio values (see Figure 6-8) are calculated based on corrected blow counts (N1)60 for SPT analyses (fines correction in the liquefaction triggering analysis is applied in the CRR equation and capped at 35 percent fines content as per Cetin et al., 2004) and on tip resistance (qc), sleeve friction (fs), and friction ratio (Rf) for CPT analyses.

Additional information used in the analyses includes USCS classifications, unit weights, 6 Ƭmax is defined for the ULE process as the peak cyclic shear stress and varies with location and depth, and, as noted, is embedded in the liquefaction triggering spreadsheets. 20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-8 Issue Date: April 2015

SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
water contents, Atterberg limits data, groundwater depth at the time of the exploration, earthquake magnitude (MW), etc. In the absence of fines content data, ULE analysts should be aware that the SPT-based spreadsheet assumes fines contents based on USCS classifications and that entry of non-USCS classifications may result in erroneous liquefaction triggering calculations. Both spreadsheets provide the analyst with the option of assigning layers as non-liquefiable based on Atterberg limits data and/or soil type and the criteria outlined in Section 6.7.1. For the purpose of ULE, analysts should assume an Mw of

6.5 associated with the 200-year event. This magnitude was selected based on deaggregation of the earthquake sources considered in the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (URS, 2012).

In some cases, groundwater data may not be available at the time the exploration was performed. For these cases, ULE analysts should use data from nearby explorations performed during a similar time of year or, when such data are unavailable, the average summer or winter WSE based on the date of the exploration.

In the absence of laboratory unit weight data (for use in the SPT-based spreadsheet), ULE analysts should determine unit weights based on soil types and N60 values as shown in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2 Unit Weights for Liquefaction Assessment
Soil Type N60 Unit Weight (pcf)
Clays and silts ≤ 4 115
5 to 8 120
≥ 9 125
Sands ≤ 10 115
11 to 29 125
≥ 30 130
Gravels All 130
Based on the spreadsheet analysis results, ULE analysts should use the following criteria to classify a soil layer, or vertical portion of a soil layer, as having liquefaction potential:
 If all FSL assessment values for a particular layer are equal to or greater than 1.25, the soil layer may be classified as non-liquefiable.
 If all FSL assessment values for a particular layer are equal to or less than 1.0, the soil layer may be classified as likely liquefiable.
 If the FSL assessment values are between 1.0 and 1.25, the soil layer may be classified as less likely liquefiable. If these less likely liquefiable layers are present in isolation in a non-liquefiable zone, the need for further evaluation will be assessed during the seismic vulnerability process.
 If the FSL assessment values for a particular layer are mixed and include multiple values less than 1.0, then the layer should be considered likely liquefiable, unless the layer can be logically split into sub-layers. ULE analysts should not perform this assessment in isolation; rather an assessment of the liquefaction profile should be performed to evaluate continuity of the layer.
20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-9 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
As discussed in Section 6.5.1, when assessing liquefaction, ULE analysts should be aware that the CPT-based liquefaction spreadsheet may classify some fine-grained soils as liquefiable. In such cases, additional information regarding soil properties, including SPT blow counts within the same layer, Atterberg limits and moisture content test results (Section 6.7.1), are required to screen CPT-based liquefaction assessment results. This screening can be difficult and uncertain, and as such, more emphasis should be placed on SPT interpretations and material classification from laboratory test data. Therefore, SPT borings drilled under ULE should be selected as the primary source of data to be carried into the liquefaction triggering analyses. CPTs and historical borings should be considered a secondary data source and used primarily to support evaluation of the longitudinal extents of liquefaction potential (Section 6.7.3).

6.7.3 Evaluate and Document Longitudinal Extent of Potentially Liquefiable Layers
Use of reach boundaries established for static analysis (seepage, slope stability) are not always appropriate for seismic vulnerability assessment. Consequently, assessment of seismic vulnerability will use the term “segments.” ULE analysts will establish segments by reviewing liquefaction analysis results, topography and bathymetry, distance to river/channel, and existing and/or planned remedial alternatives. A segment may be a portion of a reach or may be composed of multiple reaches.

After analyzing the liquefaction potential of the selected explorations, ULE analysts should establish the longitudinal and lateral extents of likely and less likely liquefiable layers for the study area by evaluating the liquefaction analyses results for the selected explorations and the geologic plans and profiles. ULE analysts should make an assessment of the longitudinal extents of liquefiable layers based on the results of analyses described in Sections 6.7.1 and

6.7.2. Additionally, ULE analysts should consider any other relevant site information. The beginning and end points of likely and less likely liquefiable layers should extend to explorations determined to be non-liquefiable.

Liquefaction analysis results for the selected explorations can be used in multiple segments to establish the longitudinal extents of likely and less likely liquefiable layers. The longitudinal extents of liquefiable zones may extend into adjacent segments and/or affect only a portion of a segment.

6.8 Seismic Vulnerability Analyses

6.8.1 Overview
The purpose of the seismic vulnerability analysis is to estimate vertical deformation, which is then used to assign a seismic vulnerability class to a seismic segment (Table 6-1). The seismic segment(s) and analysis cross section(s) should be selected based on liquefaction analysis results, available topography and bathymetry, distance to river/channel, levee geometry, and existing and/or planned mitigation measures. The seismic vulnerability analysis sections representing levee segments with potential liquefaction may be selected independent of reaches evaluated for static conditions and could be representative of multiple reaches or segments.
20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-10 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Levee segments that have been identified to have potentially liquefiable soils and/or soft soils7 will be candidates for seismic vulnerability analysis. However, the seismic vulnerability analysis will only be performed using a statically-resistant levee configuration. A levee reach is considered statically-resistant if it satisfies one of the following criteria:
 The reach meets all static analyses criteria under existing conditions (i.e., no static remediation is required).
 The reach is remediated for static vulnerability based on GER Volume 1 results. Note that conceptual static remedial alternatives must be implemented if the reach does not meet all static analyses criteria. The selected static remedial alternative will be assumed to be in place for seismic vulnerability analyses.

For seismic vulnerability analyses, ULE analysts should evaluate both waterside and landside slopes with circular and wedge-shaped failure modes using the search routines available in the slope stability software. Potential deep and shallow failure surfaces should also be evaluated. For seismic deformation analyses (Section 6.8.4), the pseudo-static horizontal seismic coefficient K or Ky should be applied only in the horizontal direction.

After selecting the analysis sections for seismic vulnerability analyses, ULE analysts should implement the following steps (see Figure 6-1):
 Perform a post-seismic slope stability analysis (Section 6.8.3) using shear strengths as discussed in Section 6.8.2. The calculated factor of safety, denoted as FSPS, can then be used to assess whether the segment is unstable after the earthquake. If the FSPS is less than 1.0, then the levee segment is classified as having high vulnerability (see Table 6-1), and no seismic deformation analysis is required.  If FSPS is greater than 1.3, the section is classified as having low vulnerability, and no seismic deformation analysis is required.
 For seismic analysis cross sections not meeting the conditions stated above, seismic deformation analysis will be performed to identify the appropriate seismic vulnerability class.

6.8.2 Seismic Shear Strengths
Seismic loading is considered a rapid loading condition; for these ULE screening-level evaluations, shear strengths for post-seismic slope stability and seismic deformation analyses should be modeled as described below. Modeling of tension cracks is also discussed at the end of this section.

If statically remediated levee geometries are analyzed, strengths will be evaluated assuming full consolidation has occurred under the remediated geometry (i.e., conditions for an earthquake relatively soon after construction will not be evaluated). For final design, evaluation of end-of-construction conditions must be completed and consolidation time must 7 For ULE screening level seismic analyses, soft soil is defined as a non-free-draining soil with estimated shear strength of less than 500 psf. This is not the same as “soft” soil defined for static stability analyses in Section 5.9.4
20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-11 Issue Date: April 2015

SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
be assessed to evaluate the likelihood of a seismic event occurring before primary consolidation is complete. This is particularly relevant to areas with thick clayey deposits.

6.8.2.1 Likely Liquefiable Soils with FSL ≤ 1
When saturated, loose coarse-grained and fine-grained materials are expected to contract and generate positive pore pressures during shear. During rapid seismic loading, the rate of pore pressure generation typically exceeds the rate of pore pressure dissipation, resulting in an incremental increase in pore pressures in these materials. This pore pressure increase leads to shear strength degradation that may ultimately lead to liquefaction or cyclic mobility.

Soils identified as likely liquefiable should be modeled using the post-liquefaction residual undrained shear strength. Residual undrained shear strengths should be estimated using the correlation proposed by Seed and Harder (1990), as shown on Figure 69. ULE analysts should use the strength at a point lying one third of the distance from the lower-bound curve to the upper-bound curve in Figure 6-9. To use Figure 6-9, residual undrained strength should be estimated based on (N1)60-cs-Sur values of the likely liquefiable layer(s). Plots of (N1)60-cs-Sur should be prepared for the seismic segments and median (N1)60-cs-Sur values should be used in the estimation of residual undrained strength.

Both the Cetin et. al. (2004) procedure for liquefaction triggering analysis and the Seed and Harder (1990) procedure for residual undrained strength estimation are empirical methods.

The fines correction for the (N1)60csSur values used in the Seed and Harder (1990) residual undrained strength correlation is not the same as the fines correction used in the liquefaction triggering analysis. As noted above, fines correction in the liquefaction triggering analysis is applied in the CRR equation as per Cetin et. al. (2004) and capped at 35 percent fines content. However, once a soil layer is considered as likely liquefiable, the fines correction is applied as per the Seed and Harder (1990) procedure. The (N1)60-cs-Sur values used in Figure 6-9 should be calculated based on the fines corrections (ΔNcorr) in Table 6-3 or Table 6-4 and the following equation:
(N1)60-cs-Sur = (N1)60 + ΔNcorr
Table 6-3 ΔNcorr Values Based on Fines Content.

Percent Fines ΔNcorr
0-5% 0
6-15% 1
16-30% 2
31-40% 3
41-60% 4
61-100% 5
20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-12 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Table 6-4 ΔNcorr Values Based on USCS Classification
USCS ΔNcorr
SP, SW, GP, GW 0
All Other Sands & Gravels 1
SC 2
ML 4
CL-ML 5
Note: Values based on suggested fines contents in USACE ETL 1110-2-580 (Draft), Table C-1.

To evaluate the residual undrained strength of coarse-grained and sand-like materials from CPT data, ULE analysts should convert CPT tip resistance to an equivalent (N1)60-cs-Sur value.

Based on a comparison between liquefaction triggering criteria from SPT data (Seed et al., 2003) and from CPT data (Moss et al., 2006), the following relationship has been developed for use in these screening evaluations:
(N1)60-cs-Sur ≈ qc,1,mod (tsf)/4.2
where the tip resistance has been corrected for increasing fines content and plasticity as:
qc,1,mod = qc,1 + Δqc
where qc,1 is the normalized tip resistance and Δqc is a “fines” correction factor as recommended in Moss et al. (2006). Δqc is a function of CSR and Rf and calculated in the ULE Excel spreadsheet using CPT data (Appendix J). The above correlation compares well with other relationships published in the literature (e.g., Robertson and Campanella, 1983; Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990).

6.8.2.2 Less Likely Liquefiable Soils with 1.0 < FSL < 1.25 As discussed in Section 6.7.2, ULE analysts should use engineering judgment to classify layers as likely liquefiable, less likely liquefiable, or non-liquefiable. This assessment should not be performed in isolation; rather, an assessment of the longitudinal geologic profile should be considered to evaluate continuity of the layer. Isolated blow counts resulting in 1.0 < FSL < 1.25 within a non-liquefiable layer may be considered non-liquefiable. However, if a liquefiable layer includes both FSL ≤ 1.0 and 1.0 < FSL < 1.25 zones, the layer should be identified as likely liquefiable, but may be divided into separate layers for post-liquefaction strength estimation and slope stability analysis.

For an FSL > 1, several procedures are generally used for estimating partial pore pressure generation using Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983) for sand and Evans (1987) and Hynes (1988) for gravel (Marcuson et al., 1989). Considering ULE’s screening-level evaluation process, ULE analysts should use a 30 percent reduction in the drained strength for soils with 1.0 < FSL < 1.25 (ICB, 2013; Balakrishnan and Perlea, 2013). 20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-13 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS

6.8.2.3 Non-Liquefiable Cohesive Soils
Due to the transient seismic loading, non-liquefiable cohesive soils should be modeled using the undrained strengths. The generalized stress history and normalized soil engineering properties (SHANSEP) equation can be used to estimate the undrained shear strength from the estimated in situ effective stresses, σ′vo, and the maximum past pressure, σ′vm. su = S x(OCR)m x σ′vo
where
su is the undrained shear strength;
S is the normalized undrained shear strength ratio for normally consolidated soil; OCR is the overconsolidation ratio = σ′vm/ σ′vo;
σ′vo is the in situ vertical effective stress;
σ′vmis the maximum past pressure; and
m is an empirical constant that varies between 0.75 and 0.85 for most soils.

ULE analysts can use the special testing program results discussed in Section 5.0 to select appropriate values of the parameter S. In the absence of any site-specific data for finegrained soils, including ML and OH, a value of S of 0.25 is recommended (refer to Section 5.0 for soil group definitions). If vane shear strength data are available, these data should be evaluated during strength selection for seismic analyses.

Considering the relatively short durations of seismic shaking associated with 200-year return period seismic loading in the ULE study area, there will be no additional seismic modification factor applied to these static strengths to develop seismic strength parameters.

6.8.2.4 Non-Liquefiable Cohesionless Soils
Dense coarse-grained materials (i.e. non-liquefiable) are expected to dilate and potentially generate negative pore pressures during shear (when saturated). Due to the generation of negative pore pressures, the undrained shear strength of these materials could be higher than their drained strength, especially under rapid loading conditions. Because these materials are also permeable, it is prudent not to rely on negative pore pressures; rather, ULE analysts should use drained strengths to analyze these materials (see Section 5.0). The shear strength of these materials is generally represented by a friction angle and pre-seismic pore pressures. Typical dense coarse-grained material types include dense natural coarsegrained sediments and compacted fills composed of relatively clean gravels and sands.

Tension Cracks
Where tension cracks occur in the levee embankment, the soil strength along the failure surface above the depth of the cracks does not contribute to slope stability and negative normal stresses may develop at the interfaces between slices in the slope stability 20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-14 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
calculations. The following crack depth guidance table is to be used in the ULE post-seismic slope stability assessment. These values were selected after discussion with the DWR seismic review panel. When the top 5 feet of the levee embankment is composed of granular fill, there is no need to consider a tension crack for slope stability analyses.

Material Crack Depth (feet)1
SP, SW, SM, SP-SM, SW-SM 0
ML, CL-ML, SC 3
CL 5
CH, MH 8
1 The maximum crack depth may not exceed ⅓ levee height (measured from the landside toe) In general, for the seismic slope stability analyses, tension cracks do not need to be modeled as filled with water. However, if conditions of water-filled tension cracks are present, ULE analysts should include these in analyses.

6.8.3 Post-Seismic Slope Stability Analyses
Using the seismic shear strengths discussed in Section 6.8.2, ULE analysts should complete post-seismic slope stability analyses using the search routines in the slope stability software.

No horizontal seismic coefficient is used in post-seismic analyses. See Figure 6-1 for key steps in the seismic vulnerability analysis process.

If the calculated FSPS for any critical shear surface is less than 1.0, then the segment is classified as having high vulnerability, and no further analysis is required. If the FSPS is greater than 1.3, the segment is classified as having low vulnerability, unless settlements due to volumetric strain (Section 6.9) result in a higher vulnerability class. If the FSPS is between 1.0 and 1.3, ULE analysts should perform seismic deformation analysis as described in Section 6.8.4. This FSPS range applies to the seismic environment and range of PHA values in ULE study areas and may not be appropriate for other geographic areas.

ULE analysts may copy and modify the slope stability files completed for the static analyses meeting all five static criteria (i.e., existing or remediated conditions, as appropriate) for seismic slope stability analyses. Modifications include changing the piezometric line and pore pressure information as discussed in Section 6.2, and changing the material shear strength as discussed in Section 6.8.2. If the WSE is above the landside toe, seepage analysis may need to be performed to calculate pore pressures for use in the slope stability analysis.

6.8.4 Seismic Deformation Analyses
Based upon the results of the post-seismic slope stability analyses for the seismic segments, if factors of safety are in the range of 1.0 to 1.3, then seismic deformation analyses will be implemented as described below.

The seismic deformation analysis presented in this document is based on the principles of Newmark-type deformation analysis (e.g., Makdisi and Seed, 1978; Seed, 1979; Idriss, 1985). The primary goal of the seismic deformation analysis is to estimate vertical deformations that are then used to assign a seismic vulnerability class (Table 6-1) for each 20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-15 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
seismic segment. The results from seismic deformation analyses including vulnerability classes will be presented in each study area’s GER Volume 2 (Figure 1-16).

The Newmark-type deformation analysis is based on the rigid-block model with several simplifying assumptions including the assumption that displacements occur along a single, well-defined slip surface and accelerations and corresponding inertial forces act in the direction of initial movement at the center of gravity of the slide mass. Note that this type of deformation analysis may not yield highly accurate results for levees because of the simplifying assumptions. However, for a screening-level study, this approach is judged to be reasonable. A more sophisticated seismic deformation analysis is not warranted at this level of study and could be performed when the design of seismic improvements are undertaken.

As shown in Figure 6-1, the key steps in the Newark-type deformation analysis process are outlined below with a detailed discussion presented in the following text:
 Estimate the earthquake-induced accelerations acting on a slide mass. Typically, earthquake-induced accelerations on a slide mass are calculated using dynamic site response analysis. However, for ULE, a simplified approach is used to estimate the maximum average earthquake-induced acceleration on a slide mass (Kmax) as shown on Figure 6-4. The relationships of Figure 6-4 are based on two-dimensional, dynamic response analyses of representative levee and foundation conditions as described in the Levee Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodology Report (URS, 2008).  Perform pseudo-static slope stability analysis using a horizontal seismic coefficient, K, equal to one-half of Kmax. As discussed below, if the minimum FS is greater than 1.0, the section may be classified as having low vulnerability unless settlements due to volumetric strain (Section 6.9) result in a higher vulnerability class.  Identify and estimate potential sliding masses and associated seismic yield coefficients (referred to as yield acceleration, Ky). Ky represents the minimum horizontal acceleration required to produce a FS equal to 1.0. In the context of Newmark’s sliding-block analogy, Ky is interpreted as the minimum acceleration required to initiate downslope displacement of a slide mass. Ky is often calculated using the limit-equilibrium pseudostatic slope stability analysis.  Estimate the permanent deformation of a slide mass using Ky and Kmax as input parameters (Figure 6-5). This method assumes that permanent deformation initiates when the earthquake-induced accelerations acting on a slide mass exceed Ky on the slip surface. At this point, the slide mass begins to experience shear slippage relative to the underlying slope. Seismic loading is cyclic in nature, and the cyclic increase, decrease, and reversal of lateral loading generally produces periods of time during which relative slippage occurs. Multiple analyses have been performed using actual earthquake time histories, and with different ratios of Ky and Kmax, to develop average curves of resulting relative displacement as a function of Ky/Kmax and the duration of the number of loading cycles (URS, 2008). The curves shown in Figure 6-5 have been selected as suitable for screening-level predictions of resulting seismic deformations under ULE seismicity conditions. In other geological and seismic regions, different curves of this type would be needed.
20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-16 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Estimate Kmax Values for the Potential Shear Surfaces
Kmax is defined as seismic loading for a potential sliding mass as represented by the horizontal equivalent acceleration, which accounts for the cumulative effect of the nonuniform horizontal acceleration distribution in the overlying deformable material (Seed and Martin, 1966). Based on this concept, Kmax represents the maximum seismic coefficient for the sliding mass: Kmax = max (horizontal equivalent acceleration)/g.

Using the Kmax vs. PHA charts shown on Figure 6-4, estimate the Kmax values for shallow and deep shear surfaces based on the geometrical symmetry of the levee.  Symmetric or Softer Levee: levee sections where the landside and waterside toe elevations are about the same, and/or the foundation is generally softer (e.g., Holocene).

For these conditions, a softer seismic response might be expected; and, for the purposes of this screening-level study, the soft Kmax curve is selected from Figure 6-4.  Asymmetric or Stiffer Levee: levee sections where the difference between the elevation of the landside and waterside toe is greater than one levee height, measured from the higher of the landside toe and waterside toe of the levee, and/or the foundation is generally stiffer (e.g., Pleistocene). Then, a stiffer seismic response might be expected; and, for the purposes of this screening-level study, the stiff Kmax curve is selected from Figure 6-4.
 Intermediate Levee Symmetry/Stiffness: a levee section that falls between the symmetric and asymmetric definitions from above might be expected to show a mediumstiff seismic response; and, for the purposes of ULE’s screening-level study, the medium Kmax curve is selected from Figure 6-4.

Perform Pseudo-Static Slope Stability Analyses with A Single Seismic Coefficient Considering the seismic environment of ULE study areas, including PHA levels and an earthquake magnitude of 6.5, negligible Newmark displacements will result when the Ky/Kmax ratio is 0.5 or greater (see Figure 6-5). As a screening tool to limit the need for full Newmark displacement analysis, a pseudo-static slope stability analysis can be performed using a horizontal seismic coefficient, K, equal to one half of Kmax (K = 0.5Kmax). If the resulting calculated minimum FS for this acceleration level is equal to 1.0, then the K value is by definition the yield acceleration (Ky) and the Ky/Kmax ratio is equal to 0.5. The resulting Newmark displacement is approximately 0.16 feet as shown on Figure 6-5. If the minimum FS is greater than 1.0, the Ky/Kmax ratio will be greater than 0.5 and the corresponding Newmark displacement will be less than 0.16 feet. Consequently, if the minimum calculated FS for an acceleration of K = 0.5Kmax is equal to or greater than 1.0, then the analysis section may be considered low vulnerability (i.e. deformation will be less than 0.16 feet) unless settlement due to volumetric strain (Section 6.9) results in a higher vulnerability class.

ULE analysts should note that K should be applied only in the horizontal direction. In addition, circular and wedge-shaped failure surfaces should be checked on the waterside and landside at deep and shallow depths. Note that the Kmax value is different for deep versus shallow failure surfaces. As general guidance, shallow failure surfaces are those considered to penetrate a maximum of 2 to 3 feet below the levee toe (landside or waterside, depending on the analyzed slope). However, ULE analysts should exercise engineering judgment when selecting limiting depths for shallow surfaces. 20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-17 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Estimate the Yield Acceleration (Ky) Values
ULE analysts should only perform this step for study area sections that have a post-seismic FS between 1.0 and 1.3, and a pseudo-static FS with K=0.5Kmax that is less than or equal to 1.0.

ULE analysts should use the seismic shear strengths discussed earlier in Section 6.8.2.

Pseudo-static analyses should be completed using the search routines in the slope stability software to calculate the yield acceleration, Ky. Ky is defined as the minimum horizontal acceleration resulting in a just-stable condition equivalent to an FS of 1.0.

For each analysis section, pseudo-static slope stability analyses need to be completed for a range of horizontal seismic coefficients (e.g., K = 0.05g, 0.10g, 0.15g, etc., up to K = 0.5Kmax, as needed) to estimate the yield acceleration value. Circular and wedge-shaped failure surfaces should be checked on the waterside and landside at deep and shallow depths.

The Ky value for each potential failure mode (i.e., waterside and landside, deep and shallow, circular and wedge), should be selected as the K value that corresponds to an FS of 1.0.

Determine Vertical Newmark-Type Deformation
Based on the Kmax and Ky values determined above, vertical deformation is estimated as outlined below.

1. Estimate the minimum Ky/Kmax ratio value.

Calculate the Ky/Kmax ratios for each potential failure mode (i.e., waterside and landside, deep and shallow, circular and wedge) and select the minimum value of the Ky/Kmax ratio.

Note that the minimum Ky/Kmax ratio value is not necessarily given by the minimum Ky.

2. Estimate the Newmark-type displacements.

Using the minimum Ky/Kmax ratio estimated for each study section, calculate the Newmark-type displacements from the chart shown on Figure 6-5. Displacements are estimated for a moment magnitude, Mw = 6.5 event.

For ULE’s screening-level study, a 0.7 foot of vertical displacement for every 1.0 foot of Newmark displacement (along the failure plane) is recommended for estimating freeboard loss (vertical displacements).

6.9 Volumetric Settlement
Settlement associated with the mechanisms such as ground loss due to sand boil ejection and dissipation of excess pore pressure (i.e., post-liquefaction reconsolidation settlement) is known as volumetric strain. Volumetric settlements are added to the vertical settlement, as estimated from seismic deformation analysis, when thick, loose deposits are evaluated.

Deposits thicker than 20 feet of potentially liquefiable soil with (N1)60-cs less than 15 are considered for volumetric strain settlement. The volumetric strain should be calculated using the CSR value for the liquefiable layer, the (N1)60-cs value of the liquefiable layer, and the relationship recommended by Wu and Seed (2004) as presented in Seed et al. (2003). Cetin 20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-18 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
et al. (2009) compares four commonly-used methods to evaluate volumetric settlement and actual field performance case histories. A summary of the four methods is shown in Table 65
Table 6-5 Mean Accuracy and Dispersion of Volumetric Settlement Methods Method Mean Accuracy1 Dispersion
Tokimatsu and Seed (1984) 1.45 R2=0.33
Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) 0.90 R2=0.42
Shamato et al. (1998) 1.93 R2=0.36
Wu and Seed (2004) 0.98 R2=0.33
1 Ratio of average actual to average predicted settlement Based on the comparison, the overall dispersion (or variances/uncertainties) are not significantly different; R2 values of between 0.33 and 0.42 are all relatively poor. The mean accuracy indicates the value by which all predicted settlements must be multiplied to provide an overall net-zero balance against the field settlements observed. Tokimatsu and Seed (1984) and Shamato et. al. (1998) tend to underestimate actual observed settlements, and require scaling factors of 1.45 and 1.93, respectively, in order to zero out this bias. Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) tend to slightly overestimate observed settlements, requiring a scaling factor of 0.90. Wu and Seed (2004) have negligible net bias represented by a net scaling factor of 0.98. Considering this negligible bias, Wu and Seed (2004) has been adopted for ULE seismic vulnerability evaluations.

Figure 610 shows the plot for estimating volumetric settlement.

6.10 Vulnerability Assessment
To establish the seismic vulnerability classification for a given segment, first freeboard loss is calculated by adding the Newmark-type vertical deformation and volumetric settlement as applicable8
. Freeboard loss is then evaluated as a percentage of levee height. The levee height is estimated from the hinge point on the landside toe. Finally, based upon the amount of deformation, a judgment is made concerning the potential for significant damage to internal structures in the levee (e.g., cutoff walls).

ULE analysts should assess the seismic vulnerability class of the evaluated levee segments using the seismic vulnerability classification system presented in Section 6.4 and Table 6-1.

ULE analysts should document the vulnerability class of the seismic segments on a levee alignment map in each study area’s GER Volume 2.
8 If the Newmark-type vertical deformation is already generating a high seismic vulnerability classification, there is no need to calculate volumetric settlement.
20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-19 Issue Date: April 2015

SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS

6.11 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Frequently-Loaded Levees (Urban-Non-Project Study Areas)

6.11.1 Criteria
ULE analysts should perform seismic vulnerability assessments for frequently-loaded levees in accordance with ULDC guidelines as they appear in Section 7.7.2 and Table 7-3. Based on the potential consequences, a higher ground motion level may be required for assessment and, in the absence of landside or waterside toe explorations, liquefaction analysis for crown explorations may need to be performed using landside or waterside CSR values, which are typically higher than the crown CSR values as demonstrated by Athanasopoulos-Zekkos and Seed (2013).

As noted in ULDC and shown in Table 6-6 below, for frequently-loaded levees with less than 5 feet of freeboard, the earthquake-induced deformations should be limited to less than 3 feet of overall (vertical and horizontal) deformation and about 1 foot of vertical displacement.

Seismic vulnerability analyses of frequently-loaded levees need to be performed as part of existing conditions analyses for each study area’s GER Volume 1. The levee alignment maps showing different vulnerability classes will be presented in the GER Volume 1 for frequently-loaded levees. A flow chart of the general protocol for assessment of frequentlyloaded levees is presented in Figure 6-11.

The seismic vulnerability assessment for frequently-loaded levees requires a robust analysis approach considering the consequences of levee failure. ULE analysts should apply the analysis approach presented in this Guidance Document using sound engineering judgment for such levees. If the estimated deformation of a given levee segment is close to the acceptable values, a more sophisticated seismic deformation analysis may be required to judge the need for seismic remedial alternatives.

Table 6-6 Criteria for Seismic Vulnerability of Frequently-Loaded Levees Amount of Total
Displacement
Amount of Vertical2
Displacement
Potential for Significant
Damage to Internal
Structures
Seismic Vulnerability
< 3 feet < 1 foot No Meets Criteria
≥ 3 feet ≥ 1 foot Yes Does Not Meet Criteria
1 This table presents criteria for frequently-loaded levees with less than 5 feet of freeboard. For larger cross sections and freeboard, larger deformation may be allowed based on engineering analysis and judgment (see ULDC Section 7.7.2 [DWR, 2012]). 2 Vertical displacement can be estimated as 0.7 times the total deformation from simplified deformation analysis (such as Newmark type displacement), and by adding volumetric settlement as applicable.

6.11.2 Seismic Remediation
If frequently-loaded levee segments do not meet seismic vulnerability criteria, the remediation protocols identified in the Conceptual Seismic Levee Remediation Alternatives and Cost Estimating Templates (URS, 2014) should be followed and verified by assessing 1 20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-20 Issue Date: April 2015 SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
the post-seismic displacement criteria identified in Table 6-6. Upon verification, conceptual cost estimates following the guidance of Section 8 should be prepared.

6.12 References for Seismic Analysis
Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A., Seed, R. 2013. “Simplified methodology for consideration of two-dimensional dynamic response of levees in liquefaction-triggering evaluation.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139 (11).

Balakrishnan, A., Perlea, V. 2013. “Seismic Review Panel Report,” Seismic Review Panel Meeting on December 13, 2013. Prepared for DWR.

Beikae, M., Idriss, I., Hudson, M. 2003. User’s Manual for QUAD4M, A Computer Program to Evaluate the Seismic Response of Soil Structures Using Finite Element Procedures and Incorporating a Compliant Base. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis, CA.

Boulanger, R., Idriss, I. 2004. Evaluating the potential for liquefaction or cyclic failure of silts and clays. Report UCD/CGM-04/01. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis, CA.

Boulanger, R., Idriss, I. 2007. “Evaluation of Cyclic Softening in Silts and Clays,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers.

Bray, J., Sancio, R. 2006. “Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers.

Cetin, K., Seed, R., Der Kiureghian, A., et al. 2004. “Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130 (12).

Cetin, K., Tolga Bilge, H., Wu, J., et al. 2009. “Probabilistic Model for the Assessment of Cyclically Induced Reconsolidation (Volumetric) Settlements.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Volume 135.

Department of Water Resources. 2012. Urban Levee Design Criteria. May.

Evans, M. 1987. “Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Testing of Gravels – The Effects of Membrane Compliance,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. California.

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. 2007. Stability Modeling with SLOPE/W 2007: An Engineering Methodology. Fourth Edition.

Hynes, M. 1988. “Pore Pressure Generation Characteristics of Gravels under Undrained Cyclic Loading,” Thesis. University of California, Berkeley.

Idriss, I. 1985. “Evaluating seismic risk in engineering practice,” Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, California and Balkema, Rotterdam.
20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-21 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Independent Consultant Board. 2013. “Independent Consultant Board Report,” Seismic Meeting of December 13, 2013. Prepared for DWR.

Ishihara, K., Yoshimine, M. 1992. “Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes.” Soils and Foundations, 32(1).

Kulhawy, F., Mayne, P. 1990. Manual On Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design.

Report EL-6800. Electric Power Research Institute.

Makdisi, F., Seed, H. 1978. “Simplified procedure for estimating dam and embankment earthquake-induced deformations.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 104 (GT7).

Marcuson, W., Hynes, H., Franklin, A. 1990. “Evaluation and use of Residual Strength in Seismic Safety Analysis of Embankments”. Earthquake Spectra, Volume 6 (3).

Moss, R. Seed, R. Kayen, R. et al. 2006. “CPT-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of In Situ Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 132, Number 8. August. Errata to Equation (5) are published in the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE.

Robertson, P., Campanella, R. 1983. “Interpretation of cone penetration tests.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 20 (4), 718-745.

Seed R., Harder, L. 1990. “SPT-Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and Undrained Residual Strength.” Proceedings of H.B. Seed Memorial Symposium, Volume 2. BiTech Publishing, Vancouver.

Seed, H. 1979. “Considerations in the earthquake-resistant design of earth and rockfill dams.” Geotechnique. 29 (3).

Seed, H., Martin, G. 1966. “The Seismic Coefficient in Earth Dam Design,” ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics. Volume 92.

Seed, R, Cetin, K., Moss, R., et al. 2003. “Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering:

A Unified and Consistent Framework,” Keynote Address, Proceedings, 26th Annual Geotechnical Spring Seminar. Los Angeles Section of the GeoInstitute, American Society of Civil Engineers.

Shamoto, Y., Zhang, J., Tokimatsu, K. 1998. “Methods for evaluating residual post liquefaction ground settlement and horizontal displacement.” Soils and Foundations. 2 (2).

Southern California Earthquake Center. 1999. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. March.

Tokimatsu, K., Seed, H. 1984. “Simplified Procedures of the Evaluation of Settlements in Clean Sands.” Report Number UCB/GT-84/16, University of California, Berkeley. 20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-22 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Tokimatsu, K., Yoshimi, Y., 1983, “Empirical Correlation of Soil Liquefaction Based on SPT NValue and Fines Content,” Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Soils and Foundations, Volume 15 (4).

USACE. 2003. Engineering and Design – Slope Stability. EM 1110-2-1902.

URS Corporation. 2007. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment performed for the Delta Risk Management Study Phase 1 Project. Prepared for DWR.

URS Corporation. 2008. Levee Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodology Technical Memorandum. Prepared for DWR.

URS Corporation. 2012. Development of a 200-year Return Period Seismic Hazard Map for the Urban Levee Evaluations Program Region. Prepared for DWR.

URS Corporation. 2014. Conceptual Seismic Levee Remediation Alternatives and Cost Estimating Templates. Prepared for DWR.

Wright, S. 1999. “A Computer Project for Slope Stability Calculations.” Technical Manuals for UTEXAS4, May 1999, Revised September 1999, Shinoak Software, Austin, Texas.

Wu, J., Seed, R. 2004. “Estimating of liquefaction-induced ground settlement (case studies)”.

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. Paper 3.09. New York.
20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-23 Issue Date: April 2015
SECTION 6.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
20150427_GuidanceDoc.docx 6-24 Issue Date: April 2015

FIGURES

FIGURES
Section 6
Figure 6-1 Seismic Vulnerability Analysis – Key Steps (Intermittently Loaded Levees)
Figure 6-2 Seismic Hazard Map
Figure 6-3 Recommended τmax versus Depth
Figure 6-4 Recommended Kmax vs. Input Motion PHA
Figure 6-5 Recommended Newmark Displacement vs. Ky/Kmax Figure 6-6 GER Liquefaction Assessment Flow Chart
Figure 6-7 Summary Guidance for Evaluating Fine-Grained Soils Liquefaction Susceptibility
Figure 6-8 Cyclic Resistance Ratio, equation by Cetin et. al., 2004.

Figure 6-9 Seed-Harder Plot for Residual Strength
Figure 6-10 Volumetric Strain
Figure 6-11 Seismic Vulnerability Analysis – Key Steps (Frequently Loaded Levees)

Figure
6-1
Seismic Vulnerability Analysis – Key Steps

Classify as “High Vulnerability”
Yes
No
Classify as “Low Vulnerability” unless
Volumetric Strain (Step 3f ) results in a
higher vulnerability class
Is
FSPS > 1.3?
Is
FS ≥1?
Step 4: If Warranted, Perform More Advanced Seismic Deformation Analysis (See Section 6.11) Step 3: Perform Simplified Seismic Deformation Analysis Evaluate and document longitudinal extent of liquefiable soils Select seismic levee segments and engineering cross-sections for seismic stability and deformation analyses
Step 1: Select Seismic Segments and Cross Sections for Seismic Vulnerability Analyses SEISMIC VULNERABILITY – KEY STEPS (INTERMITTENTLY-LOADED LEVEES) G:\DWR-7418\Project Files\TASK AREAS\General\GeotechAnalysis\GuidanceDocument\Final\Figures\Fig 6-1 Seismic Vulnerability.indd "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"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
6-2
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.

Recommended τmax versus Depth Figure
6-3
Department of Water Resources
Division of Flood Management URBAN LEVEE EVALUATIONS
PHI)
(1) Select PHI from Figure 6-1
Recommended Kmax vs Input Motion PHA Figure
6-4
Department of Water Resources
Division of Flood Management

URBAN LEVEE EVALUATIONS
Levee
Shape
Resulting
Response
Symmetric “Softer”
Less
Symmetric “Medium”
Asymmetric “Stiffer”

0.5 Recommended Newmark Displacement
vs Ky/Kmax Figure
6-5
Department of Water Resources
Division of Flood Management

URBAN LEVEE EVALUATIONS
100
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

0.1 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

0.01 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Ky/Kmax
Newmark Displacement (ft)
MW = 6
MW = 6.5
MW = 7
GER Liquefaction Assessment Flow Chart Figure
6-6
Department of Water Resources
Division of Flood Management

URBAN LEVEE EVALUATIONS
Select appropriate number and location of
representative explorations to perform
liquefaction spreadsheet analyses.

SELECT

REPRESENTATIVE EXPLORATIONS

DEFINE EXTENTS OF

LIQUEFIABLE LAYERS
Define extents of likely and less likely liquefiable layers identified during the liquefaction spreadsheet analysis by extrapolation based on the geologic profile and
stratigraphy (Section 6.7.3).

PERFORM

LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT
Perform liquefaction spreadsheet analyses
on selected explorations to identify likely and less
likely liquefiable layers. (Section 6.7.2)
Document liquefaction results in the following:
 Liquefaction analysis spreadsheets
 Longitudinal geologic profile
Use ULE Program guidelines to establish
the zone of soils to be assessed. (Section 6.7.1)

ESTABLISH LIQUEFACTION

ASSESSMENT ZONE
Use ULE Program guidelines to identify soils
in assessment zone that are not susceptible
to liquefaction. (Section 6.7.1)

SCREEN OUT SOILS THAT

ARE NOT LIQUEFIABLE

DOCUMENT RESULTS
Summary Guidance for Evaluating
Fine-Grained Soils Liquefaction Susceptibility Figure
6-7 URBAN LEVEE EVALUATIONS
Clay-like: Non-susceptible to liquefaction
Sand-like: Susceptible to liquefaction
605040302010
74 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PI < 10 CL-ML
LL (Liquid Limit)
PI (Plasticity Index) CL CH
U-Line
MH
ML
Note: See Section 6.7.1 for further clarification of liquefaction susceptibility.

Department of Water Resources Division of Flood Management Cyclic Resistance Ratio, equation by Cetin et al., 2004 Figure 6-8
Department of Water Resources Division of Flood Management

URBAN LEVEE EVALUATIONS
Seed-Harder Plot for Residual Strength Figure
6-9 URBAN LEVEE EVALUATIONS
50 For the ULE Program

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

2. At or below (N1)60-cs = 4,
use Sur = 50 psf
50 Equivalent Clean Sand Blowcount, (N1)60-cs-Sur
Department of Water Resources
Division of Flood Management
Volumetric Strain Figure
6-10 URBAN LEVEE EVALUATIONS
SOURCE:

RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING: A UNIFIED AND CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK By R.B. Seed, L.O. Cetin, R.E.S. Moss, A.M. Kammerer, J.Wu, J.M. Pestana, M.F. Fiemer, R.B. Sancio, J.D. Bray, R.E. Kayen, and A. Faris (26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation H.M.S. Queen Mary, Long Beach, CA April 30, 2003)
Department of Water Resources
Division of Flood Management
Does total
seismic
deformation meet
criteria?
Figure
6-11
Seismic Vulnerability Analysis – Key Steps

URBAN LEVEE EVALUATIONS
Department of Water Resources
Division of Flood Management
Step 2: Perform Post-Seismic Stability Analysis
Step 3a: Compute Kmax using Figure 6-4
Step 3e: Estimate vertical deformation as 0.7 times total Newmark displacement
Step 3c: Compute Ky value for sliding mass
Step 3d: Compute Newmark displacement using Kmax, Ky, and Figure 6-5 Yes
Step 3b: Perform pseudo-static stability analysis using K=0.5 Kmax No
Classify as Meets Criteria unless
volumetric strain (Step 3f ) results in a
higher vulnerability class
Is
FSPS < 1?
Yes
No
Perform post-seismic stability analysis
Continue to Step 3
No further analysis is needed.

Classify as Does Not Meet Criteria
Yes
No
Classify as Meets Criteria unless
Volumetric Strain (Step 3f ) results in a
higher vulnerability class
Is
FSPS > 1.3?
Is
FS ≥1?
Step 4: If Warranted, Perform More Advanced Seismic Deformation Analysis (See Section 6.11) Step 3: Perform Simplified Seismic Deformation Analysis Evaluate and document longitudinal extent of liquefiable soils Select seismic levee segments and engineering cross-sections for seismic stability and deformation analyses
Step 1: Select Seismic Segments and Cross Sections for Seismic Vulnerability Analyses SEISMIC VULNERABILITY – KEY STEPS (FREQUENTLY-LOADED LEVEES) Proceed to Seismic
Remediation Analysis
Document Results Yes
No
Step 3f: Calculate volumetric strain, if necessary
G:\DWR-7418\Project Files\TASK AREAS\General\GeotechAnalysis\GuidanceDocument\Final\Figures\Fig 6-11 Seismic Vulnerability.indd

APPENDIX J

APPENDIX J
Liquefaction Triggering Spreadsheets

REFERENCES:

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

NOTES & INSTRUCTIONS:

3. Color Code for Analysis Data Entry Color Code for Tabs

14. Factor of safety against liquefaction (FSL) is capped at 5.0

15. CPT data should not be entered for depths of 0.5 feet and shallower.

CONTRIBUTORS:

DWR URBAN LEVEE GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS PROGRAM (ULE)

CPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS FOR ULE
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)). Errata to Equation (5) are published in the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Sep 2007. Page 1177.

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

13. In the normal distribution function for CRR, a Probability (PL) value of 15% was used in accordance with Reference 4

11. τmax options are "Crest", "Waterside", or "Landside" to obtain τmax values from 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.

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

Michael Luebbers, GE

16. Liquefaction susceptibilty of fine-grained soils can be assessed based on laboratory data and the criteria in Reference 3 (PI <10, LL<35, and w > 0.8 LL are susceptible to liquefaction). 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 may manually enter whether fine-grained soil is susceptible to liquefaction in Column AZ ("Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type") based on laboratory data 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.

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.

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

Page 1 of 6 ends

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

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

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/SAC24R172217 Page D-1 September 10, 2024
© 2024 Kleinfelder

APPENDIX D

UPDATED SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS FOR TARGETED SEGMENTS _____________________________________________________________________ Notes:

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 16.7 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 31.4 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 16.7 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.4 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) 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 0.5 8 SC 115 58 58 58 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 13 1.14 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 8 13 12 1.1 14 0.310 11.4 0.129 2.40 No No Yes SC - Yes No 2.40 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 2.5 23 CL 125 308 308 308 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 37 1.30 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 23 36 35 1.2 43 1.745 56.5 0.120 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 4.5 21 CL 125 558 558 558 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 3.2 0.75 21 33 35 1.2 39 1.130 100.5 0.117 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 6.5 17 ML 125 808 808 808 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 17 27 59 35 1.2 32 0.597 143.4 0.115 3.00 No No No ML Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 8.5 21 CL 125 1058 1058 1058 1.4 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 4.4 0.81 22 31 35 1.2 37 0.761 185.3 0.114 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 10.5 10 CL 125 1308 1308 1308 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.15 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 11 14 35 1.3 17 0.169 226.0 0.112 1.50 No No Yes CL - No No 1.50 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 12.5 11 CL 125 1558 1558 1558 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.16 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 13 14 35 1.3 18 0.169 253.4 0.106 1.60 No No Yes CL - No No 1.60 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 14.5 12 CL 125 1808 1808 1808 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 13 1.17 1.00 7 6.2 0.89 14 15 35 1.3 19 0.170 280.7 0.101 1.68 No No Yes CL - No No 1.68 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 16.5 16 CL 125 2058 2058 2058 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 16 1.22 1.00 7 6.9 0.91 19 19 35 1.2 23 0.233 302.7 0.096 2.44 No No No CL - No No 2.44 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 18.5 11 MH 125 2308 2308 2308 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.14 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 13 12 35 1.3 16 0.130 322.9 0.091 1.43 No No Yes MH - No No 1.43 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 20.5 11 ML 125 2558 2558 2558 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 14 12 92 35 1.3 15 0.122 341.8 0.087 1.40 No No Yes ML 32 8 Yes Yes No 1.40 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 23.5 12 ML 125 2933 2933 2933 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.14 1.00 7 9.0 0.96 15 12 35 1.3 16 0.122 364.6 0.081 1.51 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.51 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 28.5 12 SM 125 3558 3558 3558 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 10.5 0.97 15 11 12 1.1 13 0.090 402.6 0.074 1.22 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.22 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 14 33.5 8 SM 115 4133 4001 4001 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 12.0 0.98 10 7 49 35 1.4 10 0.072 437.1 0.071 1.01 Yes Yes Yes SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.01 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 15 38.5 10 CL 125 4758 4314 4314 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 13.6 0.99 13 9 35 1.3 12 0.080 470.0 0.071 1.13 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 1.13 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 16 58.5 100 SM 130 7358 5666 5666 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 59 1.30 1.00 7 19.7 1.00 131 78 12 1.1 82 14.686 587.3 0.067 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 17 63.5 100 ML 125 7983 5979 5979 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 58 1.30 1.00 7 21.2 1.00 131 76 87 35 1.2 88 22.714 612.5 0.067 3.00 No Yes No ML 36 8 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 18 68.5 100 CL 125 8608 6292 6292 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 56 1.30 1.00 7 22.7 1.00 131 74 35 1.2 86 19.059 637.1 0.066 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 19 73.5 59 CL 125 9233 6605 6605 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 32 1.30 1.00 7 24.2 1.00 77 43 35 1.2 50 1.284 661.8 0.065 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Sample is at bottom of liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

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

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: North Area Streams Levee System
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
American River (North Bank): AR-12 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3106+13
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
NA, used Avg. Winter WSE
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled April 1997
2F-97-04
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-97-04_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/5/2024
Notes:

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 9.7 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 37.5 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 17.0 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 30.2 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) NfieldUSCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf) Effective Overburden
Pressure During Drilling,
σv' (psf)
Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CEDrilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CBSampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, CsStick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CRN60N1,60Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, 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 0.5 22 CL 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 21 33 35 1.2 39 2.062 11.4 0.119 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 2.5 30 SM 125 313 313 313 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 48 1.30 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 28 45 12 1.1 48 2.475 56.5 0.118 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 4.5 18 SM 125 563 563 563 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 3.2 0.75 17 27 12 1.1 29 0.510 100.5 0.116 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 6.5 16 SM 125 813 813 813 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 15 24 12 1.1 26 0.363 143.4 0.115 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 8.5 12 CL 125 1063 1063 1063 1.4 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 16 1.19 1.00 7 4.4 0.81 12 17 35 1.2 21 0.230 185.3 0.113 2.03 No No Yes CL - No No 2.03 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 10.5 19 MH 125 1313 1313 1313 1.2 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 23 1.30 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 20 25 35 1.2 30 0.432 226.0 0.112 3.00 No No No MH - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 12.5 14 ML 125 1563 1563 1563 1.1 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 16 1.20 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 15 17 35 1.2 21 0.218 253.4 0.105 2.07 No No Yes ML - No No 2.07 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 14.5 13 ML 125 1813 1813 1813 1.1 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 14 1.17 1.00 7 6.2 0.89 14 15 89 35 1.3 19 0.177 280.7 0.101 1.76 No No Yes ML 36 9 No No No 1.76 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 18 9 MH 125 2250 2250 2250 0.9 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 10 10 35 1.3 13 0.105 317.8 0.092 1.14 Yes No Yes MH - No No 1.14 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 21.5 10 MH 125 2688 2688 2688 0.9 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 9 1.11 1.00 7 8.4 0.95 12 10 35 1.3 13 0.103 349.4 0.085 1.22 Yes No Yes MH - No No 1.22 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 25 12 ML 125 3125 3125 3125 0.8 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 9.4 0.96 14 12 35 1.3 15 0.111 376.0 0.078 1.42 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.42 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 28.5 18 ML 125 3563 3563 3563 0.7 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 13 1.19 1.00 7 10.5 0.97 22 16 35 1.2 20 0.162 402.6 0.073 2.21 No No Yes ML - Yes No 2.21 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 32 11 ML 125 4000 4000 3885 0.7 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 11.6 0.98 13 10 62 35 1.3 13 0.088 427.2 0.071 1.23 Yes Yes Yes ML 19 3 Yes Yes Yes 1.23 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 14 35.5 14 SP-SM 125 4438 4438 4104 0.7 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 17 12 8 1.1 12 0.085 450.2 0.071 1.19 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 1.19 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 15 39 29 SP-SM 130 4893 4799 4341 0.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 19 1.28 1.00 7 13.7 0.99 36 23 6 6 1.0 24 0.201 473.3 0.071 2.84 No Yes No SP-SM Yes Yes Yes No 2.84 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

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

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

PROJECT NAME:

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

Conclusions and Comments
Drilled Sept. 1996
Liquefaction Assessment
Less Likely Liquefiable
From 2F-96-10
Avg. Winter WSE
3126+49
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/Segment 12/2F-96-10_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction Notes:

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

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

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

PROJECT NAME:

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

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/Segment 12/2F-99-04A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction Notes:

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 21.8 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 31.2 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 21.8 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.2 Energy Ratio = 83 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) 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)
S04 5.5 22 ML 125 688 688 688 1.6 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 26 42 52 35 1.2 50 2.288 122.1 0.115 3.00 No No No ML 16 Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled May 2008
WCNBAR_003B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
N/A, used Avg. Winter WSE
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
American River (North Bank): AR-14
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3306+35
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

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

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/WCNBAR_003B_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/5/2024
Notes:

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 21.9 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 31.3 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 21.9 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.3 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) 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 0.5 14 SC 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 22 1.27 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 14 22 12 1.1 24 0.636 11.4 0.119 3.00 No No No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 2.5 13 SM 125 313 313 313 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 21 1.25 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 13 20 32 32 1.2 25 0.438 56.5 0.118 3.00 No No No SM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 4.5 7 SM 115 543 543 543 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 11 1.12 1.00 7 3.2 0.75 7 11 12 1.1 12 0.147 100.5 0.120 1.22 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.22 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 6.5 29 SM 125 793 793 793 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 46 1.30 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 29 46 12 1.1 49 2.098 143.4 0.118 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 8.5 19 SM 125 1043 1043 1043 1.4 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 4.4 0.81 20 28 12 1.1 30 0.459 185.3 0.116 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 10.5 22 SC 125 1293 1293 1293 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 24 30 12 1.1 32 0.520 226.0 0.114 3.00 No No No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 12.5 10 SM 125 1543 1543 1543 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 11 1.14 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 11 13 12 1.1 14 0.128 253.4 0.107 1.20 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.20 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 14.5 5 SM 115 1773 1773 1773 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 6.2 0.89 6 6 12 1.1 7 0.072 280.7 0.103 0.70 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.70 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 16.5 5 SM 115 2003 2003 2003 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 6.9 0.91 6 6 41 35 1.4 9 0.078 302.7 0.098 0.79 Yes No Yes SM Yes Yes Yes No 0.79 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 18.5 8 SM 115 2233 2233 2233 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 10 9 12 1.1 10 0.086 322.9 0.094 0.91 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.91 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 20.5 8 SM 115 2463 2463 2463 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 10 9 12 1.1 10 0.081 341.8 0.090 0.90 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.90 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 23.5 10 SM 125 2838 2838 2838 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 8 1.12 1.00 7 9.0 0.96 13 11 12 1.1 12 0.089 364.6 0.084 1.07 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.07 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 28.5 10 SM 125 3463 3463 3463 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 10.5 0.97 13 10 12 1.1 11 0.079 402.6 0.076 1.05 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.05 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 14 33.5 10 SP-SM 125 4088 3952 3952 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 12.0 0.98 13 9 8 1.1 10 0.071 437.1 0.072 0.99 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.99 Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 15 38.5 10 SP-SM 125 4713 4265 4265 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 13.6 0.99 13 9 10 10 1.1 10 0.069 470.0 0.072 0.96 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.96 Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 16 58.5 36 SM 130 7313 5617 5617 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 19.7 1.00 47 28 13 13 1.1 30 0.298 587.3 0.068 3.00 No Yes No SM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

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

PROJECT NAME:

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

Data Input By Analyst
American River (North Bank): AR-14 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3307+50
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
NA, used Avg. Winter WSE
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled April 1997
2F-97-06
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-97-06_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/5/2024
Notes:

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 9.8 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 46.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 24.0 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.8 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) 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 1.5 17 CL 125 188 188 188 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 2.3 0.75 18 29 35 1.2 35 1.109 32.2 0.112 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 3.5 13 SM 125 438 438 438 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 21 1.27 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 14 22 38 35 1.2 27 0.486 74.2 0.110 3.00 No No No SM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 5.5 17 SM 125 688 688 688 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 18 29 12 1.1 31 0.579 115.0 0.109 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 7.5 14 SM 125 938 938 938 1.5 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 20 1.28 1.00 7 4.1 0.79 16 23 12 1.1 25 0.326 154.9 0.107 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 9.5 13 SM 125 1188 1188 1188 1.3 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 17 1.23 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 15 20 12 1.1 22 0.239 193.6 0.106 2.26 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.26 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 11.5 19 SM 125 1438 1438 1438 1.2 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 5.3 0.85 23 28 12 1.1 29 0.410 225.7 0.102 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 13.5 14 SM 125 1688 1688 1688 1.1 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 5.9 0.88 18 19 12 1.1 21 0.205 251.7 0.097 2.11 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.11 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 15.5 20 ML 125 1938 1938 1938 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 26 26 35 1.2 32 0.449 276.0 0.093 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 17.5 16 ML 125 2188 2188 2188 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 15 1.23 1.00 7 7.2 0.92 21 20 35 1.2 25 0.257 294.9 0.088 2.93 No No No ML - Yes No 2.93 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 21 3 SC 115 2590 2590 2590 0.9 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 8.2 0.94 4 4 48 35 1.6 6 0.059 325.5 0.082 0.72 Yes No Yes SC 30 11 No No No 0.72 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 24.5 2 SP-SM 115 2993 2993 2993 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 2 1.10 1.00 7 9.3 0.96 3 2 8 1.2 3 0.045 349.8 0.076 0.59 Yes No Yes SP-SM - Yes No 0.59 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 28 6 SP-SM 115 3395 3395 3395 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 8 6 8 1.1 7 0.060 374.1 0.072 0.84 Yes No Yes SP-SM - Yes No 0.84 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 32 9 SM 125 3895 3895 3883 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 11.6 0.98 13 9 17 17 1.2 11 0.075 400.4 0.067 1.12 Yes Yes Yes SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.12 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 14 35 31 GP 130 4285 4285 4085 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 21 1.30 0.65 7 12.5 0.99 29 19 20 20 1.1 22 0.176 419.0 0.067 2.64 No Yes Yes GP Yes Yes Yes No 2.64 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 38 53 GP 130 4675 4675 4288 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 35 1.30 0.65 7 13.4 0.99 49 32 5 1.0 33 0.393 437.5 0.066 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 16 41.5 50 GP 130 5130 5130 4525 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 31 1.30 0.65 7 14.5 0.99 46 29 5 1.0 30 0.305 458.6 0.066 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 17 45.5 38 GP 130 5650 5650 4795 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 23 1.30 0.65 7 15.7 0.99 35 21 5 1.0 22 0.164 481.3 0.065 2.51 No Yes Yes GP - Yes No 2.51 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 18 49 71 SP 130 6105 5918 5032 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 41 1.30 0.65 7 16.8 1.00 66 38 4 0 1.0 38 0.567 500.7 0.065 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 19 52.5 58 SP 130 6560 6154 5268 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 33 1.30 0.65 7 17.8 1.00 54 31 3 0 1.0 31 0.316 519.7 0.064 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 20 59 52 SP 130 7405 6594 5708 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 29 1.30 0.65 7 19.8 1.00 49 27 5 1.0 28 0.241 553.5 0.063 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 21 63 62 SP 130 7925 6864 5978 0.5 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 33 1.30 1.00 7 21.0 1.00 89 48 3 0 1.0 48 1.115 573.0 0.062 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

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

PROJECT NAME:

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

Data Input By Analyst
American River (North Bank): AR-14 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3360+71
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From 2F-97-14
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled Aug. 1997
2F-97-14
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-97-14_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/5/2024
Notes:

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 12.6 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 35.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 25.6 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 22.0 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = WatersideEnter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) 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 3.5 11 SM 115 403 403 403 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 18 1.19 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 10 17 12 1.1 18 0.245 72.0 0.116 2.11 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.11 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 6.5 4 SM 115 748 748 748 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 4 6 12 1.1 7 0.091 128.0 0.111 0.82 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.82 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 9.5 8 SP-SM 115 1093 1093 1093 1.4 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 11 1.12 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 8 11 8 8 1.1 12 0.118 178.5 0.106 1.11 Yes No Yes SP-SM Yes Yes Yes No 1.11 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 12.5 13 SM 125 1468 1468 1468 1.2 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 15 1.19 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 14 16 12 1.1 18 0.171 223.7 0.099 1.73 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.73 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 15.5 15 SM 125 1843 1843 1843 1.0 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 16 1.20 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 17 18 12 1.1 19 0.175 263.4 0.093 1.88 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.88 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 18.5 31 GP-GM 130 2233 2233 2233 0.9 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 36 34 12 12 1.1 36 0.603 299.1 0.087 3.00 No No No GP-GM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 21.5 119 GP-GM 130 2623 2623 2623 0.9 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 104 1.30 0.65 7 8.4 0.95 91 80 8 1.0 83 18.994 334.3 0.083 3.00 No No No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 25.5 100 GP-GM 130 3143 3143 2924 0.8 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 80 1.30 0.65 7 9.6 0.96 78 62 6 6 1.0 64 4.576 380.8 0.085 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 9 30.5 205 GP 130 3793 3793 3262 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 149 1.30 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 163 118 5 1.0 121 311.049 435.5 0.087 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 10 35.5 19 SM 125 4418 4386 3575 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 13 1.18 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 23 16 12 1.1 17 0.127 483.1 0.088 1.45 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.45 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 11 40.5 33 SM 130 5068 4724 3913 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 41 27 31 31 1.2 31 0.361 520.9 0.087 3.00 No Yes No SM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 12 45.5 22 ML 125 5693 5037 4226 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 14 1.20 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 27 17 35 1.2 21 0.166 553.4 0.085 1.95 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.95 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 13 50.5 50 SM 130 6343 5375 4564 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 62 38 35 35 1.2 45 0.960 583.0 0.083 3.00 No Yes No SM 40 10 No Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 14 55.5 81 ML 125 6968 5688 4877 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 48 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 101 60 35 1.2 70 6.154 609.3 0.081 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

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

PROJECT NAME:

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

Data Input By Analyst
American River (North Bank): AR-14 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3397+21
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From 2F-99-09A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled Dec. 1998
2F-99-09A
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-99-09A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/5/2024
Notes:

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 18.4 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 30.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 27.4 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 21.0 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = WatersideEnter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) 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 3.5 4 SM 115 403 403 403 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 4 6 12 1.1 7 0.107 72.0 0.116 0.92 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.92 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 6.5 6 SP-SM 115 748 748 748 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 10 1.10 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 6 9 8 1.1 10 0.113 128.0 0.111 1.02 Yes No Yes SP-SM - Yes No 1.02 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 9.5 5 SP 115 1093 1093 1093 1.4 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 5 7 5 1.1 7 0.084 178.5 0.106 0.79 Yes No Yes SP - Yes No 0.79 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 12.5 4 SM 115 1438 1438 1438 1.2 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 4 5 15 15 1.2 6 0.071 223.7 0.101 0.70 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.70 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 15.5 40 GP-GM 130 1828 1828 1828 1.0 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 42 1.30 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 45 47 8 1.0 49 1.674 263.4 0.094 3.00 No No No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 20.5 178 GP 130 2478 2478 2478 0.9 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 160 1.30 0.65 7 8.1 0.94 136 122 5 1.0 125 452.676 322.3 0.085 3.00 No No No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 25.5 150 GP 130 3128 3128 2846 0.8 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 120 1.30 0.65 7 9.6 0.96 117 94 5 1.0 96 50.044 380.8 0.087 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 8 30.5 163 GP 130 3778 3746 3184 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 119 1.30 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 129 95 5 1.0 97 51.233 435.5 0.089 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 9 35.5 22 CL 125 4403 4059 3497 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 27 19 35 1.2 23 0.204 483.1 0.090 2.27 No Yes No CL - No No 2.27 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 10 40.5 12 CL 125 5028 4372 3810 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 15 10 93 35 1.3 13 0.092 520.9 0.089 1.04 Yes Yes Yes CL 48 25 No No No 1.04 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 11 45.5 11 SM 125 5653 4685 4123 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 14 9 34 34 1.3 12 0.082 553.4 0.087 0.94 Yes Yes Yes SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.94 Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 12 50.5 24 SP-SM 130 6303 5023 4461 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 30 19 7 7 1.0 20 0.144 583.0 0.085 1.70 No Yes Yes SP-SM Yes Yes Yes No 1.70 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

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

PROJECT NAME:

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

Data Input By Analyst
American River (North Bank): AR-14 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3449+67
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From 2F-99-11A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled Dec. 1998
2F-99-11A
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-99-11A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/5/2024
Notes:

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

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

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

PROJECT NAME:

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

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

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

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

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

PROJECT NAME:

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

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

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -14.4 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 58.6 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 29.1 Energy Ratio = 77 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) 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 14 CL 125 375 375 375 1.6 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 2.7 0.75 15 25 68 35 1.2 30 0.621 67.6 0.117 3.00 No No No CL 35 26 16 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 8 15 CL 125 1000 1000 1000 1.4 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 21 1.30 0.80 7 4.3 0.80 14 20 35 1.2 24 0.312 174.9 0.114 2.74 No No No CL - No No 2.74 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10.5 4 SC 115 1288 1288 1288 1.2 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 5 6 12 1.1 7 0.079 226.0 0.114 0.69 Yes No Yes SC - Yes No 0.69 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 4 SC 115 1575 1575 1575 1.1 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 5 6 47 35 1.4 8 0.082 260.2 0.107 0.76 Yes No Yes SC 26 14 12 No No No 0.76 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 15.5 6 SC 115 1863 1863 1863 1.0 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 8 8 12 1.1 9 0.084 292.6 0.102 0.82 Yes No Yes SC - Yes No 0.82 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 18 2 CL 115 2150 2150 2150 1.0 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 2 1.10 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 3 3 35 1.8 5 0.057 317.8 0.096 0.59 Yes No Yes CL - No No 0.59 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 23 9 CL 125 2775 2775 2775 0.8 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 8 1.12 0.80 7 8.8 0.95 10 9 35 1.3 12 0.089 360.8 0.085 1.05 Yes No Yes CL 35 21 22 No No No 1.05 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 28 12 SC 125 3400 3400 3400 0.8 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 9 1.15 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 17 13 37 35 1.3 17 0.125 398.8 0.076 1.64 No No Yes SC 24 12 14 No No No 1.64 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 30.5 5 SC 115 3688 3688 3600 0.7 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 7 5 12 1.2 6 0.055 417.3 0.075 0.73 Yes Yes Yes SC - No No 0.73 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20% in Sample 11, part of same layer.
14 35.5 24 SC 125 4313 4313 3913 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 MCAL 16 1.24 0.80 7 12.6 0.99 24 17 12 1.1 18 0.131 450.2 0.075 1.75 No Yes Yes SC - No No 1.75 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20% in Sample 11, part of same layer.
16 40.5 17 SC 125 4938 4938 4226 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.15 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 22 14 12 1.1 15 0.103 483.0 0.074 1.39 No Yes Yes SC - No No 1.39 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20% in Sample 11, part of same layer.
18 45.5 56 SP-SC 130 5588 5588 4564 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 71 43 8 1.0 45 0.923 513.7 0.073 3.00 No Yes No SP-SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 20 50.5 92 CL 125 6213 6213 4877 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 MCAL 52 1.30 0.80 7 17.2 1.00 94 53 35 1.2 63 3.528 543.0 0.072 3.00 No Yes No CL 29 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 22 55.5 44 SP 130 6863 6863 5215 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 56 30 5 1.0 31 0.329 571.1 0.071 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 24 60.5 57 SP-SM 130 7513 7394 5553 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 73 38 8 1.0 40 0.604 597.7 0.070 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 27 65.5 87 ML 125 8138 7707 5866 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 44 1.30 1.00 7 21.8 1.00 112 57 93 35 1.2 67 4.490 622.4 0.069 3.00 No Yes No ML 35 9 31 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. LL≥35 29 70.5 27 SM 130 8788 8045 6204 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.20 1.00 7 23.3 1.00 35 17 45 35 1.2 21 0.150 647.0 0.068 2.21 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 2.21 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 31 75.5 192 CL 125 9413 8358 6517 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 94 1.30 1.00 7 24.8 1.00 246 120 93 35 1.2 139 ###### 671.6 0.067 3.00 No Yes No CL 31 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

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

PROJECT NAME:

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

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

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S23 52.5 150 SC 130 6650 5951 4163 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 87 1.30 1.00 7 17.8 1.00 190 110 12 1.1 116 203.309 627.6 0.098 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

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

PROJECT NAME:

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

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

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

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

Analysis By: Date:

Check By: Date:

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

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -0.8 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 45.9 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 19.9 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 25.3 Energy Ratio = 88 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) 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 0.5 21 SC 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 27 43 12 1.1 45 3.181 11.4 0.119 3.00 No No No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 3 21 SC 125 375 375 375 1.6 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 2.7 0.75 27 43 12 1.1 45 1.934 67.6 0.117 3.00 No No No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 5.5 28 SC 130 700 700 700 1.6 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 45 1.30 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 35 57 39 35 1.2 66 7.992 122.1 0.113 3.00 No No No SC 27 13 14 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 8 21 SC 125 1013 1013 1013 1.4 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 4.3 0.80 28 40 32 32 1.2 46 1.600 174.9 0.112 3.00 No No No SC 35 25 17 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 10.5 11 SC 125 1325 1325 1325 1.2 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 14 1.22 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 16 19 12 1.1 21 0.217 226.0 0.111 1.96 No No Yes SC - Yes No 1.96 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 13 11 SC 125 1638 1638 1638 1.1 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 12 1.20 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 16 18 12 1.1 19 0.186 260.2 0.103 1.80 No No Yes SC - Yes No 1.80 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 15.5 8 SC 125 1950 1950 1950 1.0 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 8 1.14 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 12 12 42 35 1.3 16 0.135 292.6 0.098 1.38 No No Yes SC - No No 1.38 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 18 10 CL 125 2263 2263 2263 0.9 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 9 1.16 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 16 15 62 35 1.3 18 0.158 317.8 0.091 1.73 No No Yes CL 39 27 17 No No No 1.73 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 20.5 13 CL 125 2575 2575 2575 0.9 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 11 1.20 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 21 18 65 35 1.2 22 0.206 341.8 0.086 2.39 No No Yes CL 15 - No No 2.39 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 25.5 15 SC 125 3200 3200 3184 0.8 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 12 1.22 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 24 19 12 1.1 21 0.171 379.8 0.078 2.21 No Yes Yes SC - Yes No 2.21 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 13 30.5 13 SC 125 3825 3825 3497 0.7 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 9 1.15 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 19 13 46 35 1.3 17 0.127 417.3 0.078 1.64 No Yes Yes SC 45 19 36 No No No 1.64 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20%. 15 35.5 32 SC 130 4475 4475 3835 0.7 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 46 31 12 1.1 33 0.408 450.2 0.076 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 17 40.5 34 ML 125 5100 5100 4148 0.6 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 49 31 69 35 1.2 37 0.540 483.0 0.076 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 19 45.5 38 SM 130 5750 5750 4486 0.6 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 55 33 12 1.1 35 0.449 513.7 0.074 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 21 50.5 48 ML 125 6375 6088 4799 0.6 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 28 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 70 40 35 1.2 48 1.145 543.0 0.074 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 23 55.5 32 ML 125 7000 6401 5112 0.6 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 18 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 47 26 90 35 1.2 32 0.338 571.1 0.073 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 25 60.5 30 ML 125 7625 6714 5425 0.5 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 16 1.28 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 44 24 35 1.2 29 0.276 597.7 0.072 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 27 65.5 39 ML 125 8250 7027 5738 0.5 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 21.8 1.00 57 30 68 35 1.2 37 0.474 622.4 0.070 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

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

PROJECT NAME:

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

Data Input By Analyst
NEMDC East: NMDE-3 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Bottom of channel
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3167+60
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
Regional Groundwater Map
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled November 2007
WRARFC_031B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) NEMDC East Liquefaction Spreadsheets/3167+60_NEMDC East - WRARFC_031 24001006.001A/SAC24R172217 Page E-1 September 10, 2024
© 2024 Kleinfelder

APPENDIX E
POST-SEISMIC STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR SEGMENT AR-14
_____________________________________________________________________ Originated by: Ryan Hochstatter Date: 12/18/23
Checked by: Edrei Espinosa Date: 1/4/2024
Project No: 24001006.001A Calculation Number: 1
Project Name: North Area Streams Levee System Seismic
Performance Summary Report Revision: 0
Calculation Title: Post-Seismic Stability Page 1

Page 1 of 6 ends

Sacramento City CouncilOctober 21, 2025

Sacramento City Council
October 21, 2025