West Sacramento Levee Evaluation Project
WEST SACRAMENTO LEVEE EVALUATION PROJECT
DRAFT PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION REPORT
April 2008
2365 Iron Point Road, Suite 300 Folsom, CA 95630 DRAFT Problem Identification Report
1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Overview...... 1 1.2 Purpose ...... 1 1.3 Project Goals and Report Objectives ...... 2 1.4 Study Area Description...... 2 1.5 Background and History ...... 5 1.6 Interagency Coordination ...... 8 1.7 Previous Studies...... 8 2. General Levee Evaluation Criteria ...... 9 2.1 USACE Levee Design Criteria...... 9 2.2 The Reclamation Board...... 10 2.3 Requirements for FEMA Certification ...... 10 2.4 Site-Specific Criteria ...... 12 3. Existing Conditions ...... 13 3.1 General Levee Layout ...... 13 3.2 Levee Performance ...... 16 3.3 Water Surface Elevations ...... 17 3.4 Utilities ...... 17 3.4.1 Utility Inventory...... 17 3.4.2 Utility Assessment ...... 19 3.5 Environmental Resources ...... 20 3.5.1 Land Cover Description...... 20 3.5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 21 3.5.3 USACE Vegetation Policy ...... 21 4. Levee Deficiency Analysis ...... 23 4.1 Types of Deficiency ...... 23 4.1.1 Seepage ...... 23 4.1.2 Slope Stability...... 23 4.1.3 Seismic Vulnerability ...... 23 4.1.4 Erosion ...... 23 4.1.5 Freeboard ...... 23 4.1.6 Geometry...... 23 4.2 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation...... 24 4.2.1 Levee Seepage Analysis...... 24 4.2.2 Levee Slope Stability Assessment ...... 27 4.2.3 Seismic Vulnerability ...... 29 4.3 Erosion Assessment...... 32 4.4 Levee Height Evaluation...... 34 4.4.1 Freeboard Evaluation ...... 34 4.4.2 Wind-Wave Analysis ...... 43 4.5 Levee Geometry Evaluation ...... 44 5. Summary ...... 46 5.1 Conclusions ...... 46 5.2 Recommendations...... 53 6. References...... 54
XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
TABLES TABLE 1.4.1 – CURRENT AND PREVIOUS REACH NAMES TABLE 2.1.1 – USACE LEVEE DESIGN CRITERIA TABLE 3.2.1 – P.L. 84-99 SITES TABLE 3.4.1.1 – UTILITY COMPANY CONTACT INFORMATION TABLE 4.2.1.1 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST NORTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.1.2 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO BYPASS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.1.3 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR YOLO BYPASS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.1.4 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR PORT NORTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.1.5 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR PORT SOUTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.1.6 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR DWSC WEST TABLE 4.2.1.7 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR DWSC EAST TABLE 4.2.1.8 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST SOUTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.1.9 – SEEPAGE SUMMARY FOR SOUTH CROSS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.1 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST NORTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.2 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO BYPASS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.3 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR YOLO BYPASS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.4 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR PORT NORTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.5 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR PORT SOUTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.6 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR DWSC WEST TABLE 4.2.2.7 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR DWSC EAST TABLE 4.2.2.8 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST SOUTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.2.9 – SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY FOR SOUTH CROSS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.1 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST NORTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.2 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO BYPASS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.3 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR YOLO BYPASS LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.4 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR PORT NORTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.5 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR PORT SOUTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.6 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR DWSC WEST TABLE 4.2.3.7 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR DWSC EAST TABLE 4.2.3.8 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST SOUTH LEVEE TABLE 4.2.3.9 – SEISMIC SUMMARY FOR SOUTH CROSS LEVEE TABLE 4.3.1 – EROSION SITE IDENTIFICATION TABLE 5.1.1 – REACH SUMMARY
XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
FIGURES FIGURE 1 – STUDY AREA FIGURE 2 – WEST SACRAMENTO BASIN LEVEE REACHES FIGURE 3 – RECENT LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION FIGURE 4 – SACRAMENTO RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FIGURE 5 – WEST SACRAMENTO NORTHERN BASIN – LEVEE REACH STATIONING FIGURE 6 – WEST SACRAMENTO SOUTHERN BASIN – LEVEE REACH STATIONING FIGURE 7 – TYPICAL LEVEE CROSS SECTION FIGURE 8 – CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES ON SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST NORTH LEVEE FIGURE 9 – CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES ON SACRAMENTO BYPASS AND YOLO BYPASS LEVEES FIGURE 10 – CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES ON PORT NORTH AND PORT SOUTH LEVEES FIGURE 11 – CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES ON DWSC WEST, DWSC EAST, AND SOUTH CROSS LEVEE FIGURE 12 – CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES ON SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST SOUTH LEVEE
GRAPHS
GRAPH 1 – FREEBOARD EVALUATION OF SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST NORTH LEVEE GRAPH 2 – FREEBOARD EVALUATION OF SACRAMENTO BYPASS LEVEE GRAPH 3 – FREEBOARD EVALUATION OF YOLO BYPASS LEVEE GRAPH 4 – FREEBOARD EVALUATION OF PORT NORTH LEVEE GRAPH 5 – FREEBOARD EVALUATION OF PORT SOUTH LEVEE GRAPH 6 – FREEBOARD EVALUATION OF DWSC WEST GRAPH 7 – FREEBOARD EVALUATION OF DWSC EAST GRAPH 8 – FREEBOARD EVALUATION FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER WEST SOUTH LEVEE GRAPH 9 – FREEBOARD EVALUATION FOR SOUTH CROSS LEVEE
XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
APPENDICESa
APPENDIX A – HDR (2007), West Sacramento Study Area Photos. August 2007. APPENDIX B – HDR (2007), Technical Memorandum: West Sacramento Interim Analysis of Existing Levee Geometry and Freeboard. August 2007. HDR (2007), Freeboard Data by Reach. APPENDIX C – HDR (2007), Technical Memorandum: West Sacramento Utility Assessment for Basin- Wide Problem Identification Report. October 2007. APPENDIX D – HDR (2007), West Sacramento Levee Cross Sections. August 2007. APPENDIX E – HDR (2008), West Sacramento Plan and Profile Sheets, April 2008. APPENDIX F – DWR (2007), Phase 1 Geotechnical Evaluation Report (P1GER), West Sacramento Region. November 2007. Prepared by URS. DWR (2007), Preliminary Geotechnical Data Report, West Sacramento. September 2007. Prepared by URS. APPENDIX G – Kleinfelder (2007), West Sacramento Levee System, Problem Identification and Alternatives Analysis, Volume 1- Geotechnical Problem Identification Solano and Yolo Counties, California. September 2007. Kleinfelder (2007), Preliminary Seismic Evaluation, West Sacramento Levee Assessment Sacrament River, Reach 1 (Sacramento River Right Bank Levee), Reclamation District 900- Yolo County, CA. June 2007. APPENDIX H – MBK Engineers (2007) Hydraulics Report for the City of West Sacramento Levee Alternatives Analysis. March 2007. MBK Engineers (2007) Water Surface Data. March 2007. APPENDIX I – NHC (2008), West Sacramento Levee System: Problem Identification Report; Erosion Assessment and Treatment Alternatives. February 2008. APPENDIX J – Jones & Stokes (2007), West Sacramento Levee System, Problem Identification and Alternatives Analysis Reaches 1 and 3, Volume 5- Environmental Constraints Analysis. March 2007. Jones & Stokes (2007), Implications for the West Sacramento Project based on the USACE White Paper “Treatment of Vegetation within Local Flood-Damage-Reduction Systems”. May 2007. APPENDIX K – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2007), Request for Federal Assistance in Repairing Flood Damages for Public Law (P.L.) 84-99 Sites, Reclamation District 900, Yolo County, California – Order 3 Site. (Final). April 2007.
a The information presented about or references made to a 100-year water surface elevation, a 100-year flood event or 100-year level of protection in any appendix is based on MBK’s “best estimate” of the 100-year flood stage and not the base flood elevations on the FEMA’s effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps. This information or reference was included simply to assess the cost effectiveness of achieving 200-year flood protection (the City’s long-term goal and recently adopted State mandate for flood protection in urban areas) in comparison with the cost effectiveness of achieving a lesser (100-year) degree of protection.
XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
ACRONYMS CCR – California Code of Regulations CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act CESA – California Endangered Species Act CFR – Code of Federal Regulations COMP STUDY – Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study CPT – Cone Penetration Test DWR – California Department of Water Resources DWSC – Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel EM – United States Army Corps of Engineers: Engineer Manual ER – United States Army Corps of Engineers: Engineer Regulation ESA – Endangered Species Act ETL – United States Army Corps of Engineers: Engineer Technical Letter FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency HDR – HDR Engineering LIDAR – Light Detection and Ranging MBK – MBK Engineers NAVD88 – North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act NFIP – National Flood Insurance Program NGVD29 – National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 NHC – Northwest Hydraulic Consultants P1GER – Phase 1 Geotechnical Evaluation Report West Sacramento Region PIR – Problem Identification Report RD – Reclamation District SOP EDG – Standard Operating Procedure Engineering Design Guidance SPT – Standard Penetration Test SRA – Shaded Riverine Aquatic THE BOARD – Central Valley Flood Protection Board THE CITY – City of West Sacramento TWL – Total Water Level UNET – one-dimensional Unsteady flow through a full NETwork of open channels URS – URS Corporation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – United States Army Corps of Engineers USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers VELB – Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
The City of West Sacramento (City) has embarked upon a comprehensive evaluation of the levees that protects the City and the surrounding areas. The City is bounded on all four sides by a levee system that provides protection from flooding. A comprehensive evaluation of these levees is a necessary step toward determining the level of flood protection currently afforded by the existing levees that protect the City.
The initial step in evaluating the West Sacramento levee system is to identify the magnitude of deficiencies in the current system. The primary objective of this step is to define the problem by establishing the existing conditions. The collection and analysis of the engineering data necessary to identify and characterize these deficiencies within the West Sacramento levee system is being conducted. Findings developed to Pr !8hyvs vhr rs prq date are presented in this Problem Identification s urv urq vtur ((&Ayq Report (PIR).
The next step is the alternatives analysis phase. During this step, potential levee improvement alternatives will be formulated for each identified deficiency. These alternatives will be compared against selection criteria and a preferred levee improvement alternative will be recommended. This step includes the development of cost estimates for each alternative based on the defined deficiencies and site specific factors. The findings of this phase will be presented in a separate and subsequent Alternatives Analysis Report.
Both the problem identification report and the alternatives analysis report will serve as the basis for subsequent technical evaluations to determine the economic impacts and environmental consequences of the various levee improvement alternatives versus their associated costs.
The City has requested the development of a PIR for the levee system that protects the City. The purpose of a PIR is to identify the number and location of deficiencies in the levee system and characterize the magnitude of each deficiency.
The collection and analysis of the engineering data necessary to identify and characterize these deficiencies are included in the technical appendices to this report. The purpose of this report is to document levee deficiencies identified within the overall levee system. The publication of this draft report allows for an external peer review of the approach, methods, data, and criteria selected for the evaluation of the overall levee system.
XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
! " #! The City’s goal is to provide the community with the maximum feasible level of flood protection that can be justified within State and Federal standards. The minimum acceptable level of protection being sought by the City is for protection from a 200-year flood event (Ordinance 07-11). This is a flood that has a 1 in 200 (0.5%) chance of occurring in any given year.
The primary objective of this report is to identify segments of levee that do not meet the design standards described in Section 2. All levees have been evaluated on the basis of seepage, stability, erosion, geometry, freeboard and seismic vulnerability criteria. The inadequate levee segments’ locations and their respective deficiencies are identified in later sections N of this PIR.
$ % The current levee evaluation extends over the entire West Sacramento basin. This basin encompasses portions of the Sacramento River, the Yolo Bypass, the Sacramento Bypass, and the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel (DWSC). The levee system associated with these waterways includes over 50 miles of levees in Reclamation District (RD) 900, RD 537, Maintenance Area 4, and DWSC. The yellow highlighted area in Figure 1 depicts the limits of the study area.
For the PIR, the levee system has been split into nine reaches. The general location of each reach is illustrated in Figure 2.
XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
N & ' ( ) *
XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
The following table shows the previous names and the current names for each reach:
Current Name Previous Name Sacramento River West North Levee Reach 7, Reach 2, Reach 8 Sacramento Bypass Levee Reach 6 Yolo Bypass Levee Reach 5 Port North Levee Reach 9A Port South Levee Reach 9B DWSC West Reach 9C DWSC East Reach 4 Sacramento River West South Levee Reach 1 South Cross Levee Reach 3
Descriptions of the nine reaches are provided below:
0 Sacramento River West North Levee extends for approximately 5.83 miles along the Sacramento River right bank levee from the Sacramento Bypass south to the confluence of the Barge Canal and the Sacramento River. 0 Sacramento River Bypass Levee extends for approximately 1.23 miles along the Sacramento Bypass left bank levee from the Sacramento Weir west to the Yolo Bypass Levee. A section of the Sacramento Bypass extends beyond the project site and is known as the Training Levee. The Training Levee will not be analyzed in this PIR and is assumed that the State of California will continue to maintain the levee at its current condition. 0 Yolo Bypass Levee extends for approximately 3.74 miles along the Yolo Bypass levee left bank from the confluence of the Sacramento Bypass and the Yolo Bypass south to the Navigation Levee (DWSC West). 0 Port North Levee extends for approximately 4.73 miles along the DWSC right bank levee from the Barge Canal west to the bend in the Navigation Levee. 0 Port South Levee extends for approximately 3.59 miles along the DWSC left bank leveefromtheBargeCanalwestpastthebendintheDWSC. 0 DWSC West extends for approximately 21.48 miles along the DWSC right bank levee from the bend in the DWSC at the intersection of Port North Levee and Yolo Bypass Levee south to Miners Slough. 0 DWSC East extends for approximately 2.75 miles along the DWSC left bank levee from the end of Port South Levee south to South Cross Levee.
$ XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
0 Sacramento River West South Levee extends approximately 6.29 miles along the Sacramento River right bank levee from the confluence of the Barge Canal and the Sacramento River south to the South Cross Levee. 0 South Cross Levee extends along the South Cross levee for approximately 1.17 miles from Jefferson Boulevard to the Sacramento River where it intersects the southern end of Sacramento River West South Levee. + ( ,- . In the early 1900s, the Federal and State governments began construction of system-wide flood management facilities, including levee, weirs, and bypass channels. This included constructing new facilities and reconstructing existing private facilities to meet the Federal engineering standards that existed at the time. The effort focused on protecting lives and property by increasing the conveyance of flood waters through the system. The design goal of the facilities was to aid navigation and flush sediment remaining from the hydraulic mining conducted late in the 19th century. These conveyance facilities improved flood protection and navigation and allowed continued agricultural and urban development. They also constrained the river to specific alignments, significantly reducing channel meandering and further isolating the rivers from their historic floodplain.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (The N ) Corps) constructed new levees or reconstructed private levees in order to complete the Sacramento River Basin Flood Management System. This project, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1917, encompasses approximately 1,100 miles of levee along the Sacramento River and its primary tributaries from Collinsville in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta upstream to Ord Ferry in Glenn County. Figure 4 depicts the overall Sacramento River Basin Flood Management System. The non-Federal sponsor for this flood control system is the Central Valley Flood Protection (formerly the State of California Reclamation Board) (Board), which has accepted the responsibility to operate and maintain the system under authority granted in the Flood Control Act of 1944. In accordance with State law, most of these responsibilities have been delegated to local levee and reclamation districts.
+ XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
A majority of the levees that protect the City are part of the Sacramento River Basin Flood Management System, originally authorized as the Sacramento River Flood Control Project. The few exceptions are the Port North and Port South Levees, the DWSC West levee and the South Cross Levee. The Port North and South Levees were constructed as part of the Port of Sacramento, DWSC West is a navigation levee constructed in association with the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, and the South Cross Levee is a private levee. Over the last century, many of the levees in the Federal program have been reconstructed and improved. Figure 3 depicts two major segments of levee that have been improved by The Corps within the last 20 years.
/ XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
$N ' ( " 1 -' '
0 XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
/ - 3 This PIR has been developed under a contract solicited by the City. However, the City is actively and regularly engaging the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a seamless source for technical peer reviews and policy guidance. This collaboration has occurred under the Urban Levee Evaluation Program being conducted as part of the floodSAFE California initiative.
0 A number of studies have been conducted on the levees that protect the City. All of these studies have been developed by The Corps in cooperation with the Board. The four studies of primary interest are:
0 Sacramento River Flood Control Project, Initial Appraisal Report, Sacramento Urban Area, May 1988 0 Sacramento River Flood Control Project, Design Memorandum, Sacramento Urban Area, November 1989 0 Sacramento Metropolitan Area, California, Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report, February 1992 0 West Sacramento Project, California, Supplemental Design Memorandum, March 1996
2 XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!' DRAFT Problem Identification Report
") " 3
This PIR is based on levee evaluation criteria commonly employed by The Corps, Board, DWR, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The sources referenced for this phase of the project generally include the criteria necessary to identify a problem as well as the requirements associated with the design and implementation of a levee repair project. The following sections cite sources referenced for this evaluation. In several cases, project specific criteria have also been established for incorporation into the levee analysis.
3)%-3 A majority of the levees included in this evaluation are Federally-authorized and fall within the jurisdiction of The Corps. The levee evaluation for the West Sacramento basin conforms to the engineering criteria established by The Corps for the assessment and repair of levees. The Corps technical criteria listed in Table 2.1.1 will be employed unless noted otherwise.
N !"# Publication Date Title ETL 1110-2-299 22-Aug-86 Overtopping of Flood Control Levees and Floodwalls Structural Design of Closure Structures for Local Flood Protection EM 1110-2-2705 31-Mar-94 Projects EM 1110-2-1614 30-Jun-95 Design of Coastal Revetments, Seawalls, and Bulkheads ETL 1110-2-555 30-Nov-97 Design Guidance on Levees EM 1110-2-2902 31-Mar-98 Conduits, Culverts, and Pipes ETL 1110-1-185 1-Feb-99 Guidelines on Ground Improvement for Structures and Facilities ER 1110-2-1150 31-Aug-99 Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects EM 1110-2-1913 30-Apr-00 Design and Construction of Levees EM 1110-1-1804 1-Jan-01 Geotechnical Investigations USACE CESPK Levee Task Force, Recommendations for Seepage ------2003 Design Criteria, Evaluation and Design Practices EM 1110-2-1902 31-Oct-03 Slope Stability SOP EDG-03 28-Jun-04 Geotechnical Levee Practice ETL 1110-2-569 1-May-05 Engineering and Design – Design Guidance for Levee Underseepage ER 1110-1-12 30-Sep-06 Quality Management
4 XrThp hrGrrr@hyhvQ wrp 6 vy!'