A07.01_-_Atch_3_-_DDR_Appendix_G_2012_Abridged_GDR.pdf

October 2012

Feather River West Levee Project

Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency

Geotechnical Data Report

FINAL

michael.hughes02 Text Box This 2012 Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) was prepared as part the Feather River West Levee Project. Relevant exploration data from this GDR has been used for design of levee improvement works for the Sutter Basin Flood Risk Management Project Cypress Avenue to Tudor Road Station 224+00 to 447+00, as referenced in AECOM's Geotechnical Design Recommendations Report Supplemental Technical Memorandum.

Portions of the report that present outdated information or information outside of the current design study area between Station 224+00 and 447+00 have been deleted, edited or red-lined out for clarity.

In 2017, 15 additional cone penetration test soundings and 3 sonic borings were completed. Logs of these explorations are attached as part of this abridged GDR.

Final

GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT

Contract 2696 October 2012

Prepared for:

SUTTER BUTTE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY

1227 Bridge Street, Suite C Yuba City, CA 95991

Prepared by:

2870 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95833

In Association with:

2491 Boatman Avenue West Sacramento, CA 95691

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GDR-FRWL_Final i Issue Date: 10-2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1

Project Description .........................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Limits .................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work ..........................................................................1-2 1.3 Authorization ..................................................................................................1-2 1.4 Elevation Datum and Horizontal Coordinates ...............................................1-2 1.5 Report Organization .......................................................................................1-3 1.6

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTS .................................... 2-1 Rationale for FRWL Explorations ..................................................................2-1 2.1 Permitting and Utility Clearance ....................................................................2-1 2.2

2.2.1 Biological and Cultural Clearance ..................................................2-1

2.2.2 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................2-2

Field Exploration ............................................................................................2-2 2.3

2.3.1 Exploration Locations .....................................................................2-2

2.3.2 Exploratory Borings ........................................................................2-2

2.3.3 Cone Penetrometer Tests ..............................................................2-2

2.3.4 Sampling and Classification ...........................................................2-3

2.3.5 Backfilling and Cuttings Disposal ...................................................2-3

Laboratory Testing .........................................................................................2-4 2.4

2.4.1 Introduction .....................................................................................2-4

2.4.2 Moisture Content and Dry Density .................................................2-4

2.4.3 Atterberg Limits ..............................................................................2-4

2.4.4 Grain Size Analysis ........................................................................2-4

2.4.5 Consolidation ..................................................................................2-4

2.4.6 Triaxial Shear .................................................................................2-4

2.4.7 Direct Shear ...................................................................................2-4

2.4.8 Compaction ....................................................................................2-5

2.4.9 Hydraulic Conductivity ....................................................................2-5

Quality Assurance and Quality Control .........................................................2-5 2.5

2.5.1 Hammer Energy Measurements ....................................................2-5

2.5.2 Boring Logs ....................................................................................2-5

2.5.3 Cone Penetrometer Test Logs .......................................................2-6

2.5.4 Laboratory Tests ............................................................................2-6

3.0 HISTORICAL FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTS ............. 3-1

1947 USACE Flood Control Project ..............................................................3-1 3.1 1957 Ben C. Gerwick Inc. 5th Street Bridge Investigation .............................3-1 3.2 1959 Reinhard W. Brandley Shanghai Bend Levee Cutoff 3.3

Foundation Report .........................................................................................3-1 1965 USACE Bank Protection Project ..........................................................3-1 3.4 1988 Wahler Associates Levee Investigation................................................3-1 3.5

GDR-FRWL_Final ii Issue Date: 10-2012

1988 Von Geldern Engineering Company Levee Stabilization 3.6

Investigation ...................................................................................................3-1 1988 The Mark Group Levee Evaluation Investigation .................................3-2 3.7 1989 The Mark Group Levee Geotechnical Stability Assessment 3.8

Investigation ...................................................................................................3-2 1989 The Mark Group Shanghai Bend Levee Geotechnical 3.9

Investigation ...................................................................................................3-2 1991 USACE Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction Project ...............3-2 3.10 1997 USACE Star Bend Levee Reconstruction Investigation .......................3-2 3.11 1997 USACE PL84-99 Star Bend Investigation ............................................3-2 3.12 1997 USACE Sacramento River Flood Control Project ................................3-2 3.13 1998 Gregg In Situ Inc. Shanghai Bend Site Investigation ...........................3-3 3.14 1998 USACE Sacramento River Flood Control Project ................................3-3 3.15 1999 URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Additional Levee Site 3.16

Investigation for Cut-off Levee at Shanghai Bend .........................................3-3 1999 USACE PL 84-99 LD 1 Slurry Wall Investigation .................................3-3 3.17 2006 Kleinfelder Levee District 9 Geotechnical Investigation .......................3-3 3.18 2006 USACE Sutter County Feasibility Study ...............................................3-3 3.19 2006 and 2007 Blackburn Consulting Inc. Geotechnical Reports 3.20 for Star Bend Setback Levee .........................................................................3-3 2007 Taber 5th Street Bridge Investigation ...................................................3-4 3.21 2008 URS Phase 1 Geotechnical Data Report (P1GDR) Sutter 3.22

Study Area .....................................................................................................3-4 2010 URS Supplemental Geotechnical Data Report (P1GDR) 3.23

Sutter Study Area ..........................................................................................3-4 2011 Caltrans Emergency Scour Retrofit Feather River Bridge 3.24

Investigation ...................................................................................................3-4 2011 Dokken Engineering 5th Street Bridge Investigation ...........................3-4 3.25 Other Pertinent Studies .................................................................................3-4 3.26

4.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................... 4-1

5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 5-1

Tables

Table 1 Summary of Reach Boundaries for FRWL Table 2 Summary of FRWL Project Explorations Table 3 Summary of Historical Explorations on FRWL Table 4 Summary of Laboratory Tests

GDR-FRWL_Final iii Issue Date: 10-2012

Figures

Figure 1 Project Location Map Figure 2a FRWL Project Plan Views – Figure Index Figure 2b FRWL Project Plan Views – Figure Legend Figure 3 Plan View, Station 10+00 to Station 60+00 Figure 4 Plan View, Station 60+00 to Station 110+00 Figure 5 Plan View, Station 110+00 to Station 160+00 Figure 6 Plan View, Station 210+00 to Station 260+00 Figure 7 Plan View, Station 260+00 to Station 310+00 Figure 8 Plan View, Station 310+00 to Station 360+00 Figure 9 Plan View, Station 360+00 to Station 410+00 Figure 10 Plan View, Station 410+00 to Station 460+00 Figure 11 Plan View, Station 460+00 to Station 510+00 Figure 12 Plan View, Station 510+00 to Station 560+00 Figure 13 Plan View, Station 560+00 to Station 610+00 Figure 14 Plan View, Station 610+00 to Station 660+00 Figure 15 Plan View, Station 660+00 to Station 710+00 Figure 16 Plan View, Station 710+00 to Station 760+00 Figure 17 Plan View, Station 760+00 to Station 810+00 Figure 18 Plan View, Station 810+00 to Station 860+00 Figure 19 Plan View, Station 860+00 to Station 910+00 Figure 20 Plan View, Station 910+00 to Station 960+00 Figure 21 Plan View, Station 960+00 to Station 1010+00 Figure 22 Plan View, Station 1010+00 to Station 1060+00 Figure 23 Plan View, Station 1060+00 to Station 1110+00 Figure 24 Plan View, Station 1110+00 to Station 1160+00 Figure 25 Plan View, Station 1160+00 to Station 1210+00 Figure 26 Plan View, Station 1210+00 to Station 1260+00 Figure 27 Plan View, Station 1260+00 to Station 1310+00 Figure 28 Plan View, Station 210+00 to Station 260+00 Figure 29 Plan View, Station 1310+00 to Station 1360+00 Figure 30 Plan View, Station 1360+00 to Station 1410+00 Figure 31 Plan View, Station 1410+00 to Station 1460+00 Figure 32 Plan View, Station 1460+00 to Station 1510+00 michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line

GDR-FRWL_Final iv Issue Date: 10-2012

Figures

Figure 33 Plan View, Station 1510+00 to Station 1560+00 Figure 34 Plan View, Station 1560+00 to Station 1610+00 Figure 35 Plan View, Station 1610+00 to Station 1660+00 Figure 36 Plan View, Station 1660+00 to Station 1710+00 Figure 37 Plan View, Station 1710+00 to Station 1760+00 Figure 38 Plan View, Station 1760+00 to Station 1810+00 Figure 39 Plan View, Station 1810+00 to Station 1860+00 Figure 40 Plan View, Station 1860+00 to Station 1910+00 Figure 41 Plan View, Station 1910+00 to Station 1960+00 Figure 42 Plan View, Station 1960+00 to Station 2010+00 Figure 43 Plan View, Station 2010+00 to Station 2060+00 Figure 44 Plan View, Station 2060+00 to Station 2110+00 Figure 45 Plan View, Station 2110+00 to Station 2160+00 Figure 46 Plan View, Station 2160+00 to Station 2210+00 Figure 47 Plan View, Station 2210+00 to Station 2260+00 Figure 48 Plan View, Station 2260+00 to Station 2310+00 Figure 49 Plan View, Station 2310+00 to Station 2360+00 Figure 50 Plan View, Station 2360+00 to Station 2372+17

Appendices

Appendix A Task Order 1 Boring Logs Appendix B Task Order 1 Hammer Energy Measurement Information Appendix C Task Order 1 Cone Penetrometer Test Logs Appendix D Task Order 1 Pore Pressure Dissipation Test Results Appendix E Task Order 1 Laboratory Test Results Appendix F Task Order 2 and Task Order 4 Boring Logs Appendix G Task Order 2 and Task Order 4 Hammer Energy Measurement Information Appendix H Task Order 2 and Task Order 4 CPT Logs Appendix I Task Order 2 and Task Order 4 Pore Pressure Dissipation Test Results Appendix J Task Order 2 and Task Order 4 Laboratory Test Results Appendix K Historical Report Information michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Text Box Relevant boring logs are presented in Appendix A Relevant CPT logs are presented in Appendix B Relevant Lab Data are presented in Appendix C

GDR-FRWL_Final v Issue Date: 10-2012

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Term Description ASTM ASTM International BCI Blackburn Consulting Incorporated CPT cone penetrometer test DWR California Department of Water Resources FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FRWL Feather River West Levee FWLA Fugro William Lettis & Associates GDR Geotechnical Data Report GIS geographic information systems GPS global positioning system HDR HDR Engineering Incorporated HEM helicopter-borne electromagnetic LD levee district MA maintenance area NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 QA/QC quality assurance/quality control SBFCA Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency SPT standard penetration test URS URS Corporation USA Underground Services Alert USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

GDR-FRWL_Final 1-1 Issue Date: 10-2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION

URS Corporation (URS) prepared this Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) in association with Blackburn Consulting Incorporated (BCI). URS and BCI are members of the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency’s (SBFCA’s) Feather River West Levee (FRWL) Project design team, led by HDR Engineering Incorporated (HDR). This GDR presents geotechnical data used to prepare the Geotechnical Design Recommendations Report (GDRR) [URS, 2012] for the FRWL Project’s 65 percent design of rehabilitation measures.

Project Description 1.1

The FRWL is part of the levee system protecting the Sutter Butte basin. The FRWL is bounded to the east by the Feather River, to the south by the Sutter Bypass, and to the west by Wadsworth Canal. The Sutter Butte basin contains orchards, cropland, and several cities and towns, including Yuba City (population approximately 60,000), Live Oak (population approximately 9,000), Gridley (population approximately 6,000), and Biggs (population approximately 2,000).

During past high water events along the Feather River, the FRWL has experienced performance issues, including a breach in 1955 that flooded Yuba City and the Sutter Butte basin. Studies performed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and others have generated geotechnical data for the FRWL and indicated that portions of the FRWL need rehabilitation if they are to perform reliably in the future.

In 2007, the local levee districts joined with local cities and Sutter and Butte Counties to form SBFCA. SBFCA is a joint powers agency charged with improving flood protection within the Sutter Butte basin. SBFCA conceived and initiated the FRWL Project to rehabilitate the FRWL. The FRWL Project will rehabilitate its levees so they meet the FEMA standard for providing protection against a 100-year flood event, and so they meet California’s standard for providing 200-year flood protection for urban areas. Project criteria and background information are discussed in the GDRR.

Project Limits 1.2

The FRWL is located along the right bank of the Feather River in Butte and Sutter Counties (see Figure 1). The FRWL is approximately 44 miles long, and extends from the Thermalito Afterbay in the north to its confluence with the Sutter Bypass in the south. The local agencies responsible for maintaining and operating these levees are:

Maintenance Area 7 (MA 7) Maintenance Area 16 (MA 16) Levee District 9 (LD 9) Levee District 1 (LD 1) Maintenance Area 3 (MA 3)

GDR-FRWL_Final 1-2 Issue Date: 10-2012

HDR developed a unique centerline and levee stationing system for the FRWL Project. This stationing is independent of existing levee stationing systems used by DWR and local reclamation or flood-control districts. SBFCA stationing starts at Station 10+00 at the confluence with Sutter Bypass and runs northward, ending at Station 2372+17 at the Thermalito Afterbay (see Figures 3 through 50). The FRWL Project includes 41 reaches extending from Station 10+00, where Reach 1 begins, to Station 2368+00, where Reach 41 ends. Reach boundaries are summarized in Table 1. Geology and reach characterization are discussed in the GDRR.

Purpose and Scope of Work 1.3

The FRWL Project field investigation discussed in this GDR collected geotechnical information to supplement existing data. These new and existing data are used in the GDRR and support the FRWL Project’s 65 percent design of rehabilitation measures.

URS and BCI completed the scope of work for this GDR, which entailed:

Program management of all geotechnical activities.

Reviewing existing information and summarizing pertinent geotechnical data in an inventory.

Completing 93 exploratory borings and 89 cone penetrometer tests (CPTs) along the

FRWL crest, waterside, landside toe, and landside field.

Geotechnical laboratory testing on selected samples from explorations.

Preparing this GDR.

Authorization 1.4

HDR authorized the work described in this GDR under FRWL Project Task Orders 1 (2010), 2 and 4 (2011 and 2012).

Elevation Datum and Horizontal Coordinates 1.5

This GDR provides elevation references in feet, and they are based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Survey data, elevations and horizontal coordinates are provided in the California State Plane Coordinate System.

GDR-FRWL_Final 1-3 Issue Date: 10-2012

Report Organization 1.6

Report organization is described in this section to help the reader locate project information.

Locations of recent and historical explorations are shown on Figures 3 through 50 in this GDR, which correspond to the plan views of Plates A3 through A50 in the GDRR. The explorations are classified by color as defined on Figure 2B:

Blue: Task Order 1 Boring or CPT. Data are in Appendices A through E.

Green: Task Order 2 or 4 Boring or CPT. Data are in Appendices F through J.

Orange: Historical Boring or CPT. Data are in Appendix K.

Tables 2 and 3 summarize recent and historical exploration information sorted by station, and show the relationship between the figures and appendices in this GDR. Table 4 summarizes recent laboratory tests sorted by station and shows where readers can locate test results in this GDR.

Text Box Relevant boring logs are presented in Appendix A Relevant CPT logs are presented in Appendix B Relevant Lab Data are presented in Appendix C michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line

Polygon Line

SECTION 2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTS

GDR-FRWL_Final 2-1 Issue Date: 10-2012

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTS

URS and BCI performed FRWL Project field investigations between August 2010 and January 2012. During field investigations, 93 exploratory borings and 89 CPTs were completed along the FRWL’s crest, waterside, landside toe, and landside field to depths ranging from 5 to 170 feet below ground surface. Table 2 summarizes these explorations.

Rationale for FRWL Explorations 2.1

Although existing geotechnical data about the FRWL was available, targeted supplemental subsurface explorations were completed during the FRWL field investigation to:

Fill data gaps at a few locations on the levee crest.

Generate additional subsurface data along the landside of the levee.

Obtain data specifically targeted at locations that might control design decisions and design elements.

The companion GDRR (URS, 2012) describes the process for selecting exploration locations.

Permitting and Utility Clearance 2.2

Bender Rosenthal, Inc., an SBFCA consultant, obtained private property owner rights-of-entry. URS and BCI obtained the following public property permits prior the start of FRWL field investigation:

California State Board of Reclamation Encroachment Permit Drilling permits from the Sutter and Butte County Environmental Health Departments Yuba City Encroachment Permit Sutter County Encroachment Permits

URS and BCI visually inspected each planned exploration location for the presence of overhead and underground utilities; they were then staked and marked with white paint.

Underground Service Alert (USA) was contacted a minimum of 48 hours prior to the start of exploration activities. A USA ticket number (including clearance date, expiration date and call-back-to-extend date) was obtained for each planned exploration location and was documented in the project file.

Proximity to overhead utilities was evaluated at each exploration location to maintain at least 15 feet between the drill rig mast and any overhead utilities (i.e., power lines). Greater clearance was maintained in the presence of high-voltage overhead power lines.

2.2.1 Biological and Cultural Clearance

Other consultants retained by SBFCA obtained biological and cultural clearances prior to the start of field investigation. Constraints were provided to the geotechnical field exploration team for appropriate modification of the exploration plan.

GDR-FRWL_Final 2-2 Issue Date: 10-2012

2.2.2 Hazardous Materials

No hazardous materials were encountered during the execution of FRWL Project field investigation.

Field Exploration 2.3

2.3.1 Exploration Locations

URS and BCI performed exploratory borings and CPTs along the levee crest, waterside, landside toe, and landside field. A total of 52 explorations were on the levee crest, six were along the waterside, 88 were along the landside levee toe, and 36 were in the landside levee field. Planned boring locations were identified using a hand-held GPS unit and geographic information system (GIS) software. Where access constraints or utility conflicts occurred, the exploration was re-located as close as possible to the planned location. FRWL Project explorations are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figures 3 through 50. FRWL Project exploration logs are included in this GDR. Stick logs of FRWL Project explorations are in the

GDRR.

2.3.2 Exploratory Borings

2.3.2.1 Auger and Mud-Rotary

Truck- and track-mounted auger and mud-rotary drill rigs were used for the FRWL Project borings. In accordance with USACE requirements, crest and waterside borings were cased through the levee fill. Hollow-stem auger drilling was typically performed down to groundwater then switched to mud-rotary. In some situations, mud-rotary borings were switched to hollow-stem auger drilling at-depth due to loss of circulation in gravel deposits.

Appendix A contains logs of auger and mud-rotary borings performed under Task Order 1.

Appendix F contains logs of auger and mud-rotary borings performed under Task Order 2 or Task Order 4.

2.3.2.2 Sonic

Particularly in the northern reaches, truck- and track-mounted sonic drill rigs were used for the FRWL Project borings to penetrate gravel layers. The sonic technique entailed using high-frequency vibration to continuously advance the drilling rod and an inner core barrel.

The casing was then withdrawn and the 4-inch-diameter sample extracted and sealed in plastic bags. Depending on rig type, drilling runs ranged from 5 to 20 feet long. Sample recovery was generally good and more effective in gravels than auger or mud-rotary borings.

Appendix F contains the sonic boring logs performed under Task Order 2 or Task Order 4.

2.3.3 Cone Penetrometer Tests

Truck- and track-mounted CPT rigs were used for the FRWL Project that pushed an instrumented cone-tipped probe into the ground while simultaneously recording resistance to penetration at the cone tip and along the friction sleeve. CPT explorations also included dissipation tests and soil sample collection in selected layers. CPT and dissipation testing michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line

GDR-FRWL_Final 2-3 Issue Date: 10-2012 were performed in general accordance with ASTM D5778. Appendix C contains the logs of the CPTs performed under Task Order 1. Appendix H contains the logs of the CPTs performed under Task Order 2 or Task Order 4.

2.3.4 Sampling and Classification

A URS or BCI engineer or geologist logged borings by visually identifying and classifying the soils encountered in general accordance with ASTM D2488, and the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). Appendices A and F have a soil classification legend at the front. Disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface materials were collected in general accordance with ASTM standards.

Disturbed soil samples were obtained from auger and mud-rotary borings in general accordance with ASTM D1586 using an unlined 2-inch-outside-diameter split-spoon drive sampler (i.e., standard penetration test). Where soil conditions dictated, samples were obtained with a 2.5-inch-outside-diameter split barrel drive sampler (i.e., modified California sampler) with liners. Disturbed soil samplers were driven 18 inches (unless otherwise noted) into undisturbed soil using an automatic safety hammer with a 140-pound weight and a 30-inch drop. Appendices B and G contain records of the automatic hammer’s energy transfer efficiency. During sampler driving, the number of blows required to drive the sampler (i.e., its N value) for each of the three 6-inch intervals (or portion thereof) was recorded.

Boring logs in Appendices A and F, and stick logs (in the GDRR) present field N values and corrected N60 values where appropriate.

Relatively undisturbed soil samples were also obtained from auger and mud-rotary borings in general accordance with ASTM D1587. Thin-wall, 3-inch outside diameter Shelby tubes were attached to a valved push-head assembly, lowered to the bottom of the cleaned borehole by drill rod and hydraulically pushed 24 inches (or portion thereof) into undisturbed soil.

Soil samples obtained from borings and CPTs were packaged and sealed in the field to reduce moisture loss and disturbance, and transported to the laboratory for testing as described below. Upon completion, soil classifications were evaluated. Appendix A presents selected test results on the boring logs. Appendix A also contains a key to the boring logs’ terminology.

2.3.5 Backfilling and Cuttings Disposal

Following the completion of drilling, excavations were backfilled with cement-bentonite grout in accordance with Sutter and Butte County Environmental Health Department requirements.

A subcontractor removed excess cuttings and drilling fluids from the site and disposed them.

michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line

GDR-FRWL_Final 2-4 Issue Date: 10-2012

Laboratory Testing 2.4

2.4.1 Introduction

Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples to help classify soils and evaluate the physical properties of these soils, which may affect the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. The tests were performed to satisfy the objectives discussed in the GDRR. The laboratory tests performed are described below and are summarized in Table 4.

Laboratory tests performed under Task Order 1 are in Appendix E. Laboratory tests performed under Task Order 2 or Task Order 4 are in Appendix J. Appendices E and J present raw data provided by the laboratory. The GDRR interprets these test results.

2.4.2 Moisture Content and Dry Density

Moisture content tests were performed to evaluate in situ moisture content of the studied profile. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D2216. Dry density was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D2937.

2.4.3 Atterberg Limits

Atterberg limits tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318 to aid in soil classification and to evaluate the plasticity characteristics of the materials encountered.

2.4.4 Grain Size Analysis

Sieve and hydrometer analyses were performed in general accordance with ASTM D1140 and ASTM D422 to evaluate gradation of the materials encountered and to help classify soils.

2.4.5 Consolidation

Consolidation tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D2435 on relatively undisturbed soil samples to evaluate the stress history and compressibility of fine-grained soils.

2.4.6 Triaxial Shear

Consolidated undrained triaxial shear tests with pore pressure measurements were performed on relatively undisturbed samples. Both total and effective strength envelopes were developed from these tests. Tests were performed in general accordance with

ASTM D4767.

2.4.7 Direct Shear

Consolidated drained direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples.

Effective strength envelopes were developed from these tests. Tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D3080.

michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line

GDR-FRWL_Final 2-5 Issue Date: 10-2012

2.4.8 Compaction

Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content tests were performed on bulk samples collected from auger borings to evaluate remolding criteria for select triaxial and direct shear tests. Tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D698.

2.4.9 Hydraulic Conductivity

Hydraulic conductivity tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples to evaluate permeability values compared to published correlations that use grain size distribution. Tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D5084.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control 2.5

2.5.1 Hammer Energy Measurements

Measurements of the energy transfer from sample-driving hammers to sample rods were collected on the field exploration drill rigs. Automatic hammer systems were used for driven sampling (standard penetration test [SPT] and other driven sampler types). Hammer energy transfer calibration measurements were used to calculate each SPT’s N value (see Appendices B and G).

SPT N values are sensitive to the energy efficiency of each specific SPT hammer used. To ensure collected N values are accurately normalized, the drilling subcontractor measured the amount of energy transferred from each SPT hammer system to the drill rod and then calculated the hammer’s energy efficiency.

Hammer calibrations were conducted in accordance with ASTM D4633. Hammer energy efficiency measurements are also recorded on the gINT boring logs wherever a hammer was used. Appendix C presents hammer energy measurement reports, including details about sampler types (SPT and modified California), rod lengths, blows per minute, and energy transfer ratios.

2.5.2 Boring Logs

Quality assurance and control processes used during investigation and during development of this GDR are detailed below. Boring logs were created by:

Entering field sampling details and soil descriptions on boring logs in general accordance with ASTM D2488, and the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487).

Performing quality control checks on field logs (performed by the Field Investigation Manager and other URS geotechnical staff).

Reviewing laboratory test results to gage conformance with field boring logs (performed by the Engineer).

Wherever appropriate, refining field log soil classifications and descriptions based on laboratory test results.

Reviewing updated gINT boring logs.

GDR-FRWL_Final 2-6 Issue Date: 10-2012

2.5.3 Cone Penetrometer Test Logs

QA/QC protocol for CPT logs consisted of calibrating and adjusting data interpretations based on recorded subsurface conditions in the boring. The CPT subcontractor was required to submit its own QA/QC plan before mobilization and start of field investigations. Before testing was started, CPT operators:

Checked and recorded cone tolerances Properly saturated piezo-transducer cavity Ensured that a properly saturated piezo-element was installed on the cone Checked and recorded baseline readings with the cone in a zero-load position Recorded differential GPS readings Ensured the cone was vertical and rig was level

CPT measurements were conducted at 2-centimeter intervals in accordance with ASTM D 5778. CPT equipment is calibrated every 6 months.

CPT reports (in electronic and hard copy form) were checked to verify that CPT signature plots and pore pressure dissipation tests performed were present in both hard copy and electronic forms and included raw data.

2.5.4 Laboratory Tests

The laboratory testing facilities maintain independent American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Materials Reference Laboratory accreditation and USACE certification. Data received were reviewed by URS geotechnical staff and finalized laboratory reports incorporated comments, where necessary.

SECTION 3.0

HISTORICAL FIELD INVESTIGATION AND

LABORATORY TESTS

GDR-FRWL_Final 3-1 Issue Date: 10-2012

3.0 HISTORICAL FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTS

Multiple field investigations were previously performed on the FRWL. Past investigations included the completion of soil borings, CPTs, test pits, helicopter-borne electromagnetic (HEM) survey, ground-based resistivity survey, LiDAR survey, geomorphic mapping, and laboratory tests on soil samples. These investigations are summarized in this section.

Appendix K provides more detailed information about previous field investigations along the FRWL. Table 3 summarizes historical explorations and classifies them by project number.

Readers should use these project numbers to locate each historical item in Appendix K.

1947 USACE Flood Control Project 3.1

As part of this project, USACE performed two borings in Reaches 40 and 41. All explorations were performed on the levee crest (USACE, 1947).

1957 Ben C. Gerwick Inc. 5th Street Bridge Investigation 3.2

As part of this investigation, four borings were performed in Reach 16. Three explorations were performed in waterside fields and one was performed in a landside field (Gerwick Inc., 1957).

1959 Reinhard W. Brandley Shanghai Bend Levee Cutoff 3.3 Foundation Report

As part of this investigation, five borings were performed in Reaches 12 and 13. Three explorations were performed on the levee crest and two were performed in waterside fields (Brandley, 1959).

1965 USACE Bank Protection Project 3.4

As part of this project, two borings were performed in Reach 11 in waterside fields (USACE, 1965).

1988 Wahler Associates Levee Investigation 3.5

As part of this investigation, ten borings were performed in Reach 15. Seven explorations were performed on the levee crest and three were performed in landside fields (Wahler, 1988).

1988 Von Geldern Engineering Company Levee Stabilization 3.6 Investigation

As part of this investigation, four borings were performed in Reach 16 on the levee crest (Von Geldern Engineering Company, 1988).

GDR-FRWL_Final 3-2 Issue Date: 10-2012

1988 The Mark Group Levee Evaluation Investigation 3.7

As part of this investigation, 46 CPTs and 12 borings were performed in Reaches 1 through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 25, 28 through 36, 39, and 40. A total of 55 explorations were performed on the levee crest and three were performed in waterside fields (The Mark Group, 1988).

1989 The Mark Group Levee Geotechnical Stability Assessment 3.8 Investigation

As part of this investigation, 12 borings and 10 test pits were performed in Reaches 2, 5, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22, 30 and 32. A total of 55 explorations were performed on the levee crest and three were performed in waterside fields (The Mark Group, 1989).

1989 The Mark Group Shanghai Bend Levee Geotechnical 3.9 Investigation

As part of this investigation, four borings were performed in Reach 12 in waterside fields (The Mark Group, 1989a).

1991 USACE Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction Project 3.10

As part of this investigation, 52 CPTs, 76 borings and 25 test pits were performed in Reaches 11, 13, 17, 20 and 21. A total of 30 explorations were performed on the levee crest;

110 were performed in landside fields; three were performed in waterside fields and 10 were performed at the landside toe of the levee. Additionally, two bulk samples were collected from landside fields (USACE, 1991).

1997 USACE Star Bend Levee Reconstruction Investigation 3.11

As part of this investigation, three borings and 22 CPTs were performed in Reach 7 and one CPT was performed in Reach 8 (USACE, 1997).

1997 USACE PL84-99 Star Bend Investigation 3.12

As part of this investigation, eight borings were performed in Reach 7. Four explorations were performed on the levee crest and were performed at the landside toe of the levee (USACE, 1997a).

1997 USACE Sacramento River Flood Control Project 3.13

As part of this project, three borings were performed in Reach 30 on the levee crest (USACE, 1997b).

GDR-FRWL_Final 3-3 Issue Date: 10-2012

1998 Gregg In Situ Inc. Shanghai Bend Site Investigation 3.14

As part of this investigation, five borings were performed in Reach 19. Four explorations were performed on the levee crest and one was performed in a landside field (Gregg In Situ Inc., 1998).

1998 USACE Sacramento River Flood Control Project 3.15

As part of this project, four borings were performed along the levee crest in Reaches 13 through 16 (USACE, 1998).

1999 URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Additional Levee Site 3.16 Investigation for Cut-off Levee at Shanghai Bend

As part of this investigation, 12 CPTs and one boring were performed in Reach 19. Two explorations were performed on the levee crest; six were performed in landside fields; four were performed in waterside fields and one was performed at the waterside toe of the levee (URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, 1999).

1999 USACE PL 84-99 LD 1 Slurry Wall Investigation 3.17

As part of this investigation, 14 borings were performed on FRWL. Five explorations were performed on the levee crest; four were performed in landside fields; four were performed in waterside fields and one was performed at landside toe of the levee (USACE, 1999).

2006 Kleinfelder Levee District 9 Geotechnical Investigation 3.18

As part of this investigation, 76 borings, 52 CPT and 25 test pits were performed in Reaches 11, 13, 17, 20 and 21. A total of 14 explorations were performed on the levee crest; 123 were performed in landside fields; six were performed in waterside field, 10 were performed at the landside toe of the levee. Additionally, two bulk samples were collected from landside fields (Kleinfelder, 2006).

2006 USACE Sutter County Feasibility Study 3.19

As part of this study, 10 borings were performed in Reaches 17-19 and 21. All explorations were performed on the levee crest (USACE, 2006).

2006 and 2007 Blackburn Consulting Inc. Geotechnical Reports for 3.20 Star Bend Setback Levee

As part of the initial investigation, 12 test pits, three CPTs and six borings were performed in Reaches 5, 6, 11, 14, 16 and 17 (Blackburn Consulting Inc., 2006). A supplemental investigation was performed in Reaches 5 through 7 that included seven borings, nine CPTs and nine test pits (Blackburn Consulting Inc., 2007).

GDR-FRWL_Final 3-4 Issue Date: 10-2012

2007 Taber 5th Street Bridge Investigation 3.21

As part of this investigation, one boring and one CPT were performed in Reach 16. One exploration was performed in a waterside field and one was performed in a landside field (Taber Consultants, 2007).

2008 URS Phase 1 Geotechnical Data Report (P1GDR) Sutter Study 3.22 Area

As part of this investigation, 163 borings and 119 CPTs were performed in Reaches 1 through 40. The explorations were performed on the crest and at the waterside toe of the levee (URS, 2008).

2010 URS Supplemental Geotechnical Data Report (P1GDR) Sutter 3.23 Study Area

As part of this investigation, 61 borings and 93 CPTs were performed in Reaches 2 through 5, 7 through 11, 13, 15 through 24, 31, 33 and 35 through 37. The explorations were performed on the crest and at the waterside toe of the levee (URS, 2010).

2011 Caltrans Emergency Scour Retrofit Feather River Bridge 3.24 Investigation

As part of this investigation, three borings were performed in Reach 16. All explorations were performed in a waterside field (Caltrans, 2011).

2011 Dokken Engineering 5th Street Bridge Investigation 3.25

As part of this investigation, one CPT was performed in Reach 16. The exploration was performed on the crest/at the waterside toe of the levee (2011 Dokken).

Other Pertinent Studies 3.26

1957 Boring Logs and Tables. These USACE-generated boring logs includes 14 borings performed in Reaches 1, 2, 3 and 21. A total of 10 explorations were performed on the levee crest, two were performed in waterside fields, one was performed at the waterside toe of the levee, and one was performed in a landside field (DOC-2570: USACE).

1957 Yuba River Levee Foundation Soil Drilling Logs. These USACE-generated logs includes five borings performed in Reach 16. Three explorations were performed in waterside fields and three were performed at the landside toe of the levee (DOC-4092:

USACE).

SECTION 4.0 LIMITATIONS

GDR-FRWL_Final 4-1 Issue Date: 10-2012

4.0 LIMITATIONS

This geotechnical data report, associated data collection and preparation have been performed in accordance with the standard of care commonly used as the state-of-practice in the engineering profession. Standard of care is defined as the ordinary diligence exercised by fellow practitioners in this area performing the same services under similar circumstances during the same period.

Discussions of subsurface conditions summarized in this report are based on subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at limited exploration locations. Variations in subsurface conditions may exist between exploration locations, and the project team may not be able disclose all adverse conditions in the levee and its foundation.

No warranty, express or implied, is made in the furnishing of this report, which is the result of geotechnical evaluation services. URS makes no warranty, express or implied, that actual encountered site and subsurface conditions will exactly conform to the conditions described herein, nor that interpretations and recommendations in this report will be sufficient for all construction planning aspects of the work. A sufficient number of additional explorations necessary to verify subsurface conditions should be performed rather than relying solely on the information presented in this report.

URS does not attest to the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of geotechnical borings and other subsurface data by others that are included or referenced in this report. In the preparation of this report, URS has relied upon data and information provided by others, including water surface elevations presented by others as representing specific events and/or governing profiles. URS has not performed independent validation or verification of data by others.

Data presented in this report are time-sensitive in that they apply only to locations and conditions existing at the time of the exploration or collection of the data. Data should not be applied to any other projects in or near the area of this study nor should they be applied at a future time without appropriate verification.

This report is for the use and benefit of HDR, SBFCA, and their consultants in connection with the execution of the FRWL Project. Use by any other party is at their own discretion and risk.

This report is a preliminary document describing work completed at the time of preparation and will be supplemented by subsequent reports as additional information becomes available. This report should not to be used as the sole basis for design, construction, remedial action, or major capital spending decisions.

SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES

GDR-FRWL_Final 5-1 Issue Date: 10-2012

5.0 REFERENCES

Ben C. Gerwick Inc. 1957. Sutter and Yuba Counties. 5th Street Bridge Soil Profile. January 30, 1957.

Blackburn Consulting Inc. 2006. Geotechnical Report for Star Bend Setback Levee. Levee District No. 1. Sutter County, California. October 20, 2006.

Brandley. 1959. Foundation Report. Shanghai Bend Levee Cutoff. West Bank-Feather River.

Sutter County, California. April 21, 1959.

Caltrans. 1941. Feather River at Marysville Profile and Test Holes. November 1941.

Caltrans. 2011. Emergency Scour Retrofit. Feather River Bridge Log of Test Borings. April 26, 2011.

DWR. 1959. Thermalito Afterbay Drilling and Sampling Log. December 18, 1959.

DWR. 1964. Drilling and Sampling Log. March 20, 1964.

DWR. 1965. Thermalito Forebay and Afterbay. Exploration Locations and Surface Geology;

Auger Bucket Locations; Soil Test Data and Summary Logs. August 9, 1965.

DWR. 1979. Drilling and Sampling Log. October 30, 1979.

DWR. 1981. Drill Hole Log. December 18, 1981.

DWR. 1982. Drill Hole Log. January 27, 1982.

Gregg In Situ Inc. 1998. Presentation of Cone Penetration Test Data. Site Investigation.

Shanghai Bend. Yuba City, California. November 16, 1998.

Kleinfelder. 2006. Letter to Sutter County Public Works. December 13, 2006.

Taber Consultants. 2007. 5th Street Bridge over Feather River. Log of Test Borings. August 2007.

The Mark Group. 1988. Geotechnical Report for Subsurface Explorations. Levee Evaluations Sutter and Butte. Counties. California. September 2, 1988.

The Mark Group. 1989. Geotechnical Stability Assessments of Levee Evaluations Sutter and Butte Counties, California. April 21, 1989.

The Mark Group. 1989a. Geotechnical Investigation Report. Shanghai Bend Levee Evaluation. Yuba City, California. Levee District No. 1 of Sutter County.

November 9, 1989.

URS Greiner Woodward Clyde. 1999. PL 84-99 Cost Shared Sacramento Basin No. 18.

Feather River, Shanghai Bend, Sutter County, California. January 14, 1999.

SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES

GDR-FRWL_Final 5-2 Issue Date: 10-2012

URS. 2008. Phase 1 Geotechnical Data Report (P1GDR) Sutter Study Area. 2008.

URS. 2010. Supplemental Geotechnical Data Report (SGDR) Sutter Study Area. 2010.

URS. 2011. Geotechnical Analysis for Pre-Design Formulation. August 2011.

USACE. 1947. Sacramento River, California, Flood Control Project. West Levee Feather River Sutter-Butte Canal Headgates General Plan and Profile. May 30, 1947.

USACE. 1957. Boring Logs and Tables. 1957.

USACE. 1957a. Yuba River Levee Foundation Soil Drilling Logs. 1957.

USACE. Figure 50-4-4004. Sacramento River and Tributaries, California Bank Protection Project. Bank Protection. July 23, 1965.

USACE. 1991. Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction Project. Phase 2 Feather River.

Sutter and Yuba Counties, California. 1991.

USACE. 1997. Letter to Sutter County Public Works. January 31, 1997.

USACE. 1997a. PL84-99 Phase III, Relief Wells - LD 1 Feather River at Star Bend. February 1997.

USACE. 1997b. Marysville/Yuba City Area, California. Sacramento River Flood Control Project Phase II, Levee Reconstruction Contract 3 (Sites 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12).

June 18, 1997.

USACE. 1998. Marysville/Yuba City Area, California. Sacramento River Flood Control Project Phase II, Levee Reconstruction Contract 3 (Sites 1, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12). June 3, 1998.

USACE. 1999. PL84-99 Cost Shared/Added Sites Sacramento Basin No. 18. LD 1 Slurry Wall. 1999.

USACE. 2006. Sutter County Feasibility Study Drilling Logs. November 2006.

Von Geldern Engineering Company. 1988. Letter to The Mark Group. October 3, 1988.

Wahler Associates. 1988. Levee Investigation. Levee District No. 1. Right Bank Feather River Adjacent to Gilsizer Slough. Yuba City, California. May 1988.

TABLES

Geotechnical Data Report

Table1_SummaryReachBoundaries Page 1 of 1 Issue Date: 10-2012

Table 1. Summary of Reach Boundaries for FRWL

FRWL Project Reach SBFCA Begin Station SBFCA End Station Length (feet) 1 10+00 129+66 11,966

2 129+66 218+66 8,900

3 218+66 300+66 8,200

4 300+66 410+67 11,001

5 410+67 478+68 6,801

6 478+68 510+37 3,169

7 510+37 596+00 8,563

8 596+00 654+75 5,875

9 654+75 706+50 5,175

10 706+50 774+00 6,750

11 774+00 830+00 5,600

12 830+00 845+00 1,500

13 845+00 927+00 8,200

14 927+00 954+40 2,740

15 954+40 968+50 1,410

16 968+50 1080+00 11,150

17 1080+00 1130+86 5,086

18 1130+86 1213+85 8,299

19 1213+85 1297+83 8,398

20 1297+83 1374+33 7,650

21 1374+33 1433+83 5,950

22 1433+83 1503+83 7,000

23 1503+83 1609+37 10,554

24 1609+37 1623+86 1,449

25 1623+86 1674+37 5,051

26 1674+37 1707+11 3,274

27 1707+11 1721+60 1,449

28 1721+60 1769+31 4,771

29 1769+31 1813+33 4,402

30 1813+33 1902+00 8,867

31 1902+00 1958+00 5,600

32 1958+00 1989+00 3,100

33 1989+00 2122+00 13,300

34 2122+00 2182+00 6,000

35 2182+00 2224+00 4,200

36 2224+00 2259+00 3,500

37 2259+00 2290+00 3,100

38 2290+00 2303+00 1,300

39 2303+00 2319+00 1,600

40 2319+00 2359+00 4,000

41 2359+00 2368+00 900 michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line michael.hughes02 Line

Table2_TO2Explorations Page 1 of 5 Issue Date: 10-2012

Table 2. Summary of FRWL Project Explorations

SBFCA

Station Reach Exploration ID Location

Exploration Type

Completed Depth (ft)

Figure Number Northing Easting

Task Order

Appendix for Log

11+08 1 SM0003_009C Landside Toe CPT 50 3 2089119.26 6670521.08 2 H 29+08 1 SM0003_001C Landside Toe CPT 85 3 2089995.14 6671959.65 1 C 58+38 1 SM0003_002C Landside Toe CPT 85 3 2090962.83 6674499.05 1 C 64+97 1 SM0003_001B Landside Toe Boring 32 4 2090754.33 6675123.51 2 F 74+25 1 SM0003_003C Landside Toe CPT 121 4 2090680.83 6675914.03 1 C 92+17 1 SM0003_015C Landside Toe CPT 46 4 2091789.19 6677322.09 2 H 106+30 1 SM0003_004C Landside Toe CPT 92 4 2092685.59 6678386.52 1 C 126+00 1 SM0003_002B Levee Waterside Boring 51 5 2094266.86 6679522.9 2 F 159+73 2 SM0003_016C Landside Field CPT 60 5 2097506.47 6679929.98 2 H 171+47 2 SM0003_017C Landside Field CPT 60 6 2098623.98 6679830.58 2 H 190+80 2 SM0003_006C Landside Toe CPT 85 6 2100244.04 6678869.29 1 C 198+47 2 SM0003_007C Landside Toe CPT 90 6 2100657.14 6678249.27 1 C 198+74 2 SM0003_010C Landside Field CPT 60 6 2100600.12 6678157.29 2 H 212+98 2 SM0003_003B Landside Field Boring 52 7 2102070.7 6678089.55 2 F 235+00 3 SM0003_011C Levee Crest CPT 108 7 2104096.35 6678680.7 2 H 239+44 3 SM0003_008C Landside Toe CPT 85 7 2104552.7 6678684.22 1 C 240+07 3 SM0003_012C Landside Field CPT 85 7 2104637.15 6678643.16 2 H 255+02 3 SM0003_013C Landside Toe CPT 80 7 2105984.51 6679259.37 2 H 275+00 3 SM0003_014C Levee Crest CPT 90 8 2107937.93 6679394.44 2 H 280+00 3 SL0001_015C Landside Field CPT 70 8 2108475.15 6679280.99 2 H 306+35 4 SL0001_001C Landside Toe CPT 90 8 2111059.31 6679469.72 1 C 311+99 4 SL0001_016C Levee Crest CPT 100 9 2111618.20 6679460.38 2 H 318+83 4 SL0001_003B Levee Waterside Boring 50 9 2112299.63…