DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

DETROIT DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
BOX 1027
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48231-1027

15 December 2010

IN REPLY REFER TO

Engineering & Construction Office

Danny Swindle
President, Village of Estral Beach
7194 Lakeview Boulevard
PO Box 107
Newport, MI 48166

Mr. Swindle,

Attached is the routine inspection report of the Estral Beach Advanced Measures Project
conducted on June 11, 2010.

The project has received an overall "unacceptable" rating based on the current condition
ofthe project. The three primary issues that warranted this rating are discussed below.

Encroachments are rampant throughout the clay levee along Canal Street. At numerous
locations, local residents have removed portions of the land side toe of the levee and constructed
a retaining wall that does not appear to meet our criteria. These walls would likely fail during a
flood event, and lead to instability of the dike. The excavation of the toe of the levee also
adversely affects the project for seepage & piping failure by shortening the pathway for seepage.

Vegetation in the form of large trees is present within the "vegetation free" zone. The
zone extends across the levee, and 15 feet out from either toe. The only acceptable vegetation in
this zone is grasses. Vegetation can adversely impact the levee by providing seepage pathways
along the roots, as well as the potential for moving large amounts of soil if the trees are uprooted
and overturned. Trees on the land side are most critical, as the roots will travel through the levee
to seek water on the other side. Vegetation also obscures the levees and inhibits inspections. For
more information regarding vegetation control on levees, please see ETL 1110-2-571,
"Guidelines for Landscape Planting and Vegetation Management at Levees, Floodwalls,
Embankment Dams, and Appurtenant Structures." The document is available online at
http://usace.anny.mil/publications/ under the "Engineer Technical Letters" link.

The rock cribs are actively failing. The steel bars have excessive corrosion, and have
broken in several areas. Several areas have excessive rotation, and would not likely survive the
next major storm event. This issue is not due to lack of maintenance. The advanced measures
project provides for temporary flood control. The rock cribs have been in place for
approximately 25 years, and have reached the end of their life. These structures should be
replaced with permanent flood control structures.


-2

We understand that the Village of Estral Beach obtained 25 year easements for this
temporary flood control project, which will be expiring shortly. Please inform us on whether the
Village will be extending these easements, and performing repairs necessary to stay active in the
Corps of Engineers 84-99 Program. If the issues listed above are not addressed within 1 year, the
project will be placed in an 'inactive status' in the 84-99 Program and will not be eligible for
Federal flood damage repair funding. The Village also will need to submit a plan for the required
repairs. Tina Kowitz can be contacted at (313) 226-6719, or Tina.P.Kowitz@usace.army.mil.

Copies of this report are being provided to FEMA, State & Local Emergency
Management Agencies, and Congress as required by our guidance from headquarters.

Sincerely,

David L. Schweiger, P.E.
Levee Safety Officer
Chief, Engineering & Construction Office

Enclosure

Copies Furnished:

Honorable John Dingell
State ofMichigan Emergency Management & Homeland Security
Monroe County Emergency Management Division
FEMA, Region V (Mr. Hanke)
Engineering Management Office (Jarvis)
Operations Office (Schloop)
Programs & Project Management Office (Alicia Lane)


Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System
SInspection Report

US Army Corps

of Engineers®
Name of Segment / System: Estral Beach Advanced Measures Project
Public Sponsor(s): Estral Beach
Public Sponsor Representative: Danny Swindle, Bernie Ciupak, Ed Dyson
Sponsor Phone:
Sponsor Email: dswindle@msn.com

Corps of Engineers Inspector: Tina Kowitz, Bill O'Donoghue, Tim Smith
Inspection Report Prepared By: Tina Kowitz
Internal Technical Review (for Periodic Inspections) By: /A

Final Approved By:
Type of Inspection:

Contents of Report:

' '

-Initial Eligibility Inspection

N Continuing Eligibility Inspection (Routine)

] Continuing Eligibility Inspection (Periodic)
M Instructions

Ssystem,

Initial Eligibility Inspection
SGeneral Items for All Flood Control Works
SLevee Embankment

ConcreteFloodwals

Sother

El Sheet Pile and Concrete I-walls
E Interior Drainage System

SPump Stations

E FDR System Channels

Date ofInspection: 6/11/2010

Date Report Prepared: 12/9/2010

Date ofITR: N/A

David Schweiger, PE, LSO Date Approved: / /

Overall Segment / System Rating: D Acceptable

F Minimally Acceptable

E Unacceptable

Note: In addition to the report contents indicated here, a plan view drawing of the
with stationing, should be included with this report to reference locations of

items rated less than acceptable. Photos of general system condition and any noted

deficiencies should also be attached.
Note: This inspection rating represents the Corps evaluation of operations and
maintenance of the flood damage reduction system and may be used in conjunction with

information for a levee certification determination for National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) purposes if applicable. An Acceptable Corps inspection rating, alone,
does not equate to a certifiable levee for the NFIP. It is recommended for levee systems
currently accredited by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for NFIP

purposes receiving a Corps Minimally Acceptable or Unacceptable rating be evaluated
by the levee owner to determine the potential impacts to the certification for FEMA.


General Items for All Flood Damage Reduction Segments / Systems

For use during all inspections of all Flood Damage Reduction Segments / Systems

Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines
Location/Remarks/Recommendations

1.
Operations and A A Levee Owner's Manual, O&M Manuals, and/or manufacturer's operating instructions are Local Sponsor has a copy of the O&M manual.
Maintenance present.
Manuals
M
Sponsor manuals are lost or missing or out of date: however, sponsor will obtain manuals
prior to next scheduled inspection.

U
Sponsor has not obtained lost or missing manuals identified during previous inspection.

2.
Emergency A A The sponsor maintains a stockpile of sandbags, shovels, and other flood fight supplies which Local Sponsor has a stockpile of sandbags for emergency
Supplies and will adequately supply all needs for the initial days of a flood fight. Sponsor determines floodfighting.
Equipment required quantity of supplies after consulting with inspector.
(A or M only) M
The sponsor does not maintain an adequate supply of flood fighting materials as part of their
preparedness activities.

3.
Flood A A Sponsor has a written system-specific flood response plan and a solid understanding of how to As part of an effort to obtain house raising grants. Monroe
Preparedness and operate, maintain, and staff the FDR system during a flood. Sponsor maintains a list of County is updating an emergency action plan that will be
Training emergency contact information for appropriate personnel and other emergency response adopted by Estral Beach.
(A or M only) agencies.
M
The sponsor maintains a good working knowledge offlood response activities, but
documentation of system-specific emergency procedures and emergency contact personnel is
insufficient or out of date.

Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable: Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction
General Items for All Flood Damage Reduction

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System

Segments / Systems

Inspection Report

Page 1 of 1

US Army Corps
of Engineers@


Levee Embankments

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments / systems

Rated Item Rating
1. Unwanted
Vegetation
Growth'
U

2.
Sod Cover M
3.
Encroachments U
4.
Closure Structures A
(Stop Log,
Earthen Closures,
Gates, or Sandbag
Rating Guidelines
A The levee has little or no unwanted vegetation (trees, bush, or undesirable weeds), except for
vegetation that is properly contained and/or situated on overbuilt sections, such that the
mandatory 3-foot root-free zone is preserved around the levee profile. The levee has been
recently mowed. The vegetation-free zone extends 15 feet from both the landside and
riverside toes of the levee to the centerline of the tree. If the levee access easement doesn't
extend to the described limits, then the vegetation-free zone must be maintained to the
easement limits. Reference EM 1110-2-301 or Corps policy for regional vegetation variance.
M Minimal vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or trees 2 inches in diameter or smaller) is present
within the zones described above. This vegetation must be removed but does not currently
threaten the operation or integrity of the levee.
U Significant vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or any trees greater than 2 inches in diameter) is
present within the zones described above and must to be removed to reestablish or ascertain
levee integrity.
A There is good coverage of sod over the levee.
M Approximately 25% of the sod cover is missing or damaged over a significant portion or over
significant portions of the levee embankment. This may be the result of over-grazing or
feeding on the levee, unauthorized vehicular traffic, chemical or insect problems, or burning
during inappropriate seasons.
U Over 50% of the sod cover is missing or damaged over a significant portion or portions of the
levee embankment.
N/A Surface protection is provided by other means.
A No trash, debris, unauthorized farming activity, structures, excavations, or other obstructions
present within the easement area. Encroachments have been previously reviewed by the
Corps, and it was determined that they do not diminish proper functioning of the levee.
M Trash, debris, unauthorized farming activity, structures, excavations, or other obstructions
present, or inappropriate activities noted that should be corrected but will not inhibit
operations and maintenance or emergency operations. Encroachments have not been
reviewed by the Corps.
U Unauthorized encroachments or inappropriate activities noted are likely to inhibit operations
and maintenance, emergency operations, or negatively impact the integrity of the levee.
A Closure structure in good repair. Placing equipment, stoplogs, and other materials are readily
available at all times. Components are clearly marked and installation instructions/
procedures readily available. Trial erections have been accomplished in accordance with the
O&M Manual.

Location/Remarks/Recommendations

Large trees on levee crown, crest, and within 15 feet of the
toe of the dike in several areas. Some areas of levee are
heavily forested.

Several areas of sparse vegetation that needs to be restored.
Some areas have trouble establishing sod cover in shaded
areas near trees.

Multiple areas in earthen levee where residents have
excavated into the toe of the levee, and placed items on top
oflevee. Excavation at the toe of the levee threatens the

seepage

slope
slopeslope stability
stabilitystability of
ofof the
thethe levee,
levee,levee, as
asas well
wellwell as
asas shortens
shortensshortens the
thethe see
p

No stoplog closures at this project. Small area that needs to
be sandbagged during a flood event, and the local sponsor
keeps a supply of sandbags on hand.

Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction
Levee Embankments

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System

Page 1 of 5

Inspection Report
US Army Corps
of Engineers®


Levee Embankments

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments / systems

Rated Item Rating

Closures)
(A or U only)

5.
Slope Stability A
6.
Erosion/ Bank A
Caving
7.
Settlement2 M
8.
Depressions/ A
Rutting
9.
Cracking A
Rating Guidelines
U Any of the following issues is cause for this rating: Closure structure in poor condition. Parts
missing or corroded. Placing equipment may not be available within the anticipated warning
time. The storage vaults cannot be opened during the time of inspection. Components of
closure are not clearly marked and installation instructions/procedures are not readily
available. Trial erections have not been accomplished in accordance with the O&M Manual.
N/A There are no closure structures along this component of the FDR segment / system.
A No slides, sloughs, tension cracking, slope depressions, or bulges are present.
M Minor slope stability problems that do not pose an immediate threat to the levee embankment.
U Major slope stability problems (ex. deep seated sliding) identified thatmust be repaired to
reestablish the integrity of the levee embankment.
A No erosion or bank caving is observed on the landward or riverward sides of the levee that
might endanger its stability.
M There are areas where minor erosion is occurring or has occurred on or near the levee
embankment, but levee integrity is not threatened.
U Erosion or caving is occurring or has occurred that threatens the stability and integrity of the
levee. The erosion or caving has progressed into the levee section or into the extended
footprint of the levee foundation and has compromised the levee foundation stability.
A No observed depressions in crown. Records exist and indicate no unexplained historical
changes.
M Minor irregularities that do not threaten integrity of levee. Records are incomplete or
inclusive.
U Obvious variations in elevation over significant reaches. No records exist orrecords indicate
that design elevation is compromised.
A There are scattered, shallow ruts, pot holes, or other depressions on the levee tha are
unrelated to levee settlement. The levee crown, embankments, and access road crowns are
well established and drain properly without any ponded water.
M There are some infrequent minor depressions less than 6 inches deep in the levee crown,
embankment, or access roads that will pond water.
U There are depressions greater than 6 inches deep that will pond water.
A Minor longitudinal, transverse, or desiccation cracks with no vertical movement along the
crack. No cracks extend continuously through the levee crest.
M Longitudinal and/or transverse cracks up to 6 inches in depth with no vertical movement along
the crack. No cracks extend continuously through the levee crest. Longitudinal cracks are no
longer than the height of the levee.

Location/Remarks/Recommendations

Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction
US Army Corps
Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System
Inspection Report
Levee Embankments
Page 2 of 5
of Engineers®


Levee Embankments

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments / systems

Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations
U Cracks exceed 6 inches in depth. Longitudinal cracks are longer than the height of the levee
and/or exhibit vertical movement along the crack. Transverse cracks extend through the entire
levee width.
10. Animal Control M A Continuous animal burrow control program in place that includes the elimination of active
burrowing and the filling in of existing burrows.
M The existing animal burrow control program needs to be improved. Several burrows are
present which may lead to seepage or slope stability problems, and they require immediate
attention.
U Animal burrow control program is not effective or is nonexistent. Significant maintenance is
required to fill existing burrows, and the levee will not provide reliable flood protection until
this maintenance is complete.
11. Culverts/
Discharge Pipes
(This item
includes both
concrete and
corrugated metal
pipes.)
N/A A There are no breaks, holes, cracks in the discharge pipes/ culverts that would result in
significant water leakage. The pipe shape is still essentially circular. All joints appear to be
closed and the soil light. Corrugated metal pipes, if present, are in good condition with 100%
of the original coating still in place (either asphalt or galvanizing) or have been relined with
appropriate material, which is still in good condition. Condition of pipes has been verified
using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the past five years,
and the report for every pipe is available for review by the inspector.
M There are a small number of corrosion pinholes or cracks that could leak water and need to be
repaired, but the entire length of pipe is still structurally sound and is not in danger of
collapsing. Pipe shape may be ovalized in some locations but does not appear to be
approaching a curvature reversal. A limited number of joints may have opened and soil loss
may be beginning. Any open joints should be repaired prior to the next inspection.
Corrugated metal pipes, if present, may be showing corrosion and pinholes but there are no
areas with total section loss. Condition of pipes has been verified using television camera
video taping or visual inspection methods within the past five years, and the report for every
pipe is available for review by the inspector.
U Culvert has deterioration and/or has significant leakage; it is in danger of collapsing or as
already begun to collapse. Corrugated metal pipes have suffered 100% section loss in the
invert. HOWEVER: Even if pipes appear to be in good condition, as judged by an external
visual inspection, an Unacceptable Rating will be assigned if the condition ofpipes has not
been verified using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the
past five years, and reports for all pipes are not available for review by the inspector.
N/A There are no discharge pipes/ culverts.
12. Riprap
Revetments &
M A No riprap displacement or stone degradation that could pose an immediate threat to the
integrity of channel bank. Riprap intact with no woody vegetation present.

Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction
Levee Embankments

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System Levee Embankents
rL-J Inspection Report Page 3 of 5
US Army Corps
of Engineers®


Levee Embankments

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments / systems

Rated Item Rating

Bank Protection?

13.
Revetments other N/A
than Riprap
14.
Underseepage N/A
Relief Wells/ Toe
Drainage Systems
15.
Seepage A
Rating Guidelines

M
Minor riprap displacement or stone degradation that could pose an immediate threat to the
integrity of the channel bank. Unwanted vegetation must be cleared or sprayed with an
appropriate herbicide.

U
Significant riprap displacement, exposure of bedding, or stone degradation observed. Scour
activity is undercutting banks, eroding embankments, or impairing channel flows by causing
turbulence or shoaling. Rock protection is hidden by dense brush, trees, or grasses.

N/A
There is no riprap protecting this feature of the segment / system, or riprap is discussed in
another section.

A
Existing revetment protection is properly maintained, undamaged, and clearly visible.

M
Minor revetment displacement or deterioration that does not pose an immediate threat to the
integrity of the levee. Unwanted vegetation must be cleared or sprayed with an appropriate
herbicide.

U
Significant revetment displacement, deterioration, or exposure ofbedding observed. Scour
activity is undercutting banks, eroding embankments, or impairing channel flows by causing
turbulence or shoaling. Revetment protection is hidden by dense brush and trees.

N/A
There are no such revetments protecting this feature of the segment / system.

A
Toe drainage systems and pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FDR segment /
system stability during high water functioned properly during the last flood event and no
sediment is observed in horizontal system (if applicable). Nothing is observed which would
indicate that the drainage systems won't function properly during the next flood, and
maintenance records indicate regular cleaning. Wells have been pumped tested within the
past 5 years and documentation is provided.

M
Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells are damaged and may become clogged if they
are not repaired. Maintenance records are incomplete or indicate irregular cleaning and pump
testing.

U
Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FDR segment /
system stability during flood events have fallen into disrepair or have become clogged. No
maintenance records. No documentation of the required pump testing.

N/A
There are no relief wells/toe drainage systems along this component of the FDR segment /
system.

A
No evidence or history of unrepaired seepage, saturated areas, or boils.

M
Evidence or history of minor unrepaired seepage or small saturated areas at or beyond the
landside toe but not on the landward slope of levee. No evidence of soil transport.

U
Evidence or history of active seepage, extensive saturated areas, orboils.

Location/Remarks/Recommendations

Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction
Levee Embankments

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System

Page 4 of 5

Inspection Report
US Army Corps
of Engineers®


General Instructions for the Inspection of Flood Damage Reduction Segments / Systems

A. Purpose of USACE Inspections:
The primary purpose of these inspections is to prevent loss of life and catastrophic damages: preserve the value of Federal investments, and to encourage non-Federal sponsors to bear responsibility for

their own protection. Inspections should assure that Flood Damage Reduction structures and facilities are continually maintained and operated as necessary to obtain the maximum benefits.

Inspections

are also conducted to determine eligibility for Rehabilitation Assistance under authority of PL 84-99 for Federal and non-Federal systems. (ER 1130-2-530. ER 500-1-1 )

B. Types of Inspections:
The Corps conducts several types of inspections of Flood Damage Reduction systems, as outlined below:

Initial Eligibility Inspections
Continuing Eligibility Inspections

Initial Eligibility Inspections
Routine Inspections

Periodic Inspections

IEIs are conducted to determine whether a non-
Rls are intended to verify proper

PIs are intended to verify proper maintenance and component operation and to evaluate operational adequacy,

Federally constructed Flood Damage Reduction
maintenance, owner structural stability, and safety of the system.

Periodic Inspections evaluate the system's original design criteria

system meets the minimum criteria and standards set
preparedness. and component vs.

current design criteria to determine potential performance impacts, evaluate the current conditions, and

forth by the Corps for initial inclusion into the
operation,

compare the design loads and design analysis used against current design standards. This is to be done to

Rehabilitation and Inspection Program.

identify components and features for the sponsor that need to be monitored more closely over time or

corrected as needed.

(Periodic Inspections are used as the basis of risk assessments.)

C. Inspection Boundaries:
Inspections should be conducted so as to rate each Flood Damage Reduction "Segment" of the system.

The overall system rating will be the lowest segment rating in the system.

Project

System

Segment
A flood damage reduction project is made up of one A flood damage reduction system is made up of one or more flood damage

A flood damage reduction segment is defined as a discrete
or more flood damage reduction systems which were reduction segments which collectively provide flood damage reduction

to a portion of a flood damage reduction system that is operated and

under the same authorization.
defined area. Failure of one segment within a system constitutes failure of the maintained by a single entity. A flood damage reduction
entire system. Failure of one system does not affect another system.

segment can be made up of one or more features (levee.
floodwall. pump stations etc).

D. Land Use Definitions:
The following three definitions are intended for use in determining minimum required inspection intervals and initial requirements for inclusion into the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program.

Inspections should be considered for all systems that would result in significant environmental or economic impact upon failure regardless of specific land use.

Agricultural
Rural

Urban

Protected population in the range of zero to 5
Protected population in the range

Greater than 20 households per square mile: major industrial areas with significant infrastructure investment.

households per square mile protected.
of 6 to 20 households per square

Some protected urban areas have no permanent population but may be industrial areas with high value
mile protected. infrastructure with no overnight population.

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System General Instructions
SA Inspection Report Page 1 of 3
US Army Corps
of Engineers®


E. Use of the Inspection Report Template:
The report template is intended for use in all Army Corps of Engineers inspections of levee and floodwall systems and flood damage reduction channels. The section of the template labeled "Initial
Eligibility" only needs to be completed during Initial Eligibility Inspections of Non-Federally constructed Flood Damage Reduction Systems. The section labeled "General Items" needs to be completed
with every inspection, along with all other sections that correspond to features in the system. The section labeled "Public Sponsor Pre-Inspection Report" is intended for completion before the inspection.
if possible.

F. Individual Item / Component Ratings:
Assessment of individual components rated during the inspection should be based on the criteria provided in the inspection report template, though inspectors may incorporate additional items into the
report based on the characteristics of the system. The assessment of individual components should be based on the following definitions.

Acceptable Item Minimally Acceptable Item
Unacceptable Item

The inspected item is in satisfactory condition, with The inspected item has one or more minor deficiencies that need to be The inspected item has one or more serious deficiencies that
no deficiencies, and will function as intended during corrected. The minor deficiency or deficiencies will not seriously impair the need to be corrected. The serious deficiency or deficiencies will
the next flood event, functioning of the item as intended during the next flood event, seriously impair the functioning of the item as intended during

the next flood event.

G. Overall Segment / System Ratings:
Determination of the overall system rating is based on the definitions below. Note that an Unacceptable System Rating may be either based on an engineering determination that concluded that noted
deficiencies would prevent the system from functioning as intended during the next flood event, or based on the sponsor's demonstrated lack of commitment or inability to correct serious deficiencies in a
timely manner.

Acceptable System Minimally Acceptable System
Unacceptable System

All items or components are rated as Acceptable.
One or more items are rated as Minimally Acceptable or one or more items are One or more items are rated as Unacceptable and would prevent
rated as Unacceptable and an engineering determination concludes that the the segment / system from performing as intended, or a serious
Unacceptable items would not prevent the segment / system from performing deficiency noted in past inspections (which had previously
as intended during the next flood event, resulted in a minimally acceptable system rating) has not been

corrected within the established timeframe. not to exceed two
years.

H. Eligibility for PL84-99 Rehabilitation Assistance:
Inspected systems that are not operated and maintained by the Federal government may be Active in the Corps' Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP) and eligible for rehabilitation assistance from
the Corps as defined below:

If the Overall System Rating is Acceptable If the Overall System Rating is Minimally Acceptable
Ifthe Overall System Rating is Unacceptable

The system is active in the RIP and eligible for
The system is Active in the RIP during the time that it takes to make needed The system is Inactive in the RIP. and the status will remain

PL84-99 rehabilitation assistance,
corrections. Active systems are eligible for rehabilitation assistance. Inactive until the sponsor presents USACE with proof that all
However, if the sponsor does not present USACE with proof that serious items rated Unacceptable have been corrected. Inactive systems
deficiencies (which had previously resulted in a minimally acceptable system are ineligible for rehabilitation assistance.
rating) were corrected within the established timeframe. then the system will
become Inactive in the RIP.

General Instructions

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System
Page 2 of 3

Inspection Report
US Army Corps
of Engineers'


Reporting:

After the inspection, the Corps is responsible for assembling an inspection report (or a summary report if it was a Periodic Inspection) including the following information:

a. All sections of the report template used during the inspection, including the cover and pre-inspection materials.
weren't used during the inspection do not need to be included with the report.)
(Supplemental data collected, and any sections of the template that
b. Photos of the general system condition and noted deficiencies.
c. A plan view drawing of the system, with stationing, to reference locations of items rated less than acceptable.
d. The relative importance of the identified maintenance issues should be specified in the transmittal letter.
e. If the Overall System Rating is Minimally Acceptable, the report needs to establish a timeframe for correction of serious deficiencies noted (not to exceed two years) and indicatethat if these items are not corrected within the required timeframe. the system will be rated as Unacceptable and made Inactive in the Rehabilitation Inspection Program.

J.
Notification:
Reports are to be disseminated as follows within 30 clays of the inspection date.
If the Overall System Rating is Acceptable If the Overall System Rating is Minimally Acceptable

If the Overall System Rating is Unacceptable

Reports need to be provided to the local sponsor and Reports need to be provided to the local sponsor. state emergency management Reports need to be provided to the local sponsor, state

the county emergency management agency. agency, county emergency management agency, and to the FEMA region. emergency management agency, county emergency management

agency. FEMA region. and to the Congressional delegation
within 30 days of the inspection.

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System General Instructions
US Army Corps
Inspection Report Page 3 of 3
of Engineers"


Floodwalls

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of all floodwalls

Rated Item Rating
1. Unwanted
Vegetation
Growth'
I

2.
Encroachments U
3.
Closure Structures N/A
(Stop Log
Closures and
Gates)
(A or U only)
4.
Cerneete CRIB U
Surfaces
Rating Guidelines

A
A grass-only or paved zone is maintained on both sides of the floodwall, free of all trees,
brush, and undesirable weeds. The vegetation-free zone extends 15 feet from both the land
and riverside of the floodwall, at ground-level, to the centerline of the tree. Additionally, an 8foot
root-free zone is maintained around the entire structure, including the floodwall toe, heel,
and any toe-drains. If the floodwall access easement doesn't extend to the described limits,
then the vegetation-free zone must be maintained to the easement limits. Reference EM 11102-
301 and/or Corps policy for regional vegetation variance.

M
Minimal vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or trees 2 inches in diameter or smaller) is present
within the zones described above. This vegetation must be removed but does not currently
threaten the operation or integrity of the floodwall.

U
Significant vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or any trees greater than 2 inches in diameter) is
present within the zones described above. This vegetation threatens the operation or integrity
of the floodwall and must be removed.

A
No trash, debris, unauthorized structures, excavations, or other obstructions present within the
easement area. Encroachments have been previously reviewed by the Corps, and it was
determined that they do not diminish proper functioning of the floodwall.

M
Trash, debris, unauthorized structures, excavations, or other obstructions present, or
inappropriate activities noted that should be corrected but will not inhibit operations and
maintenance or emergency operations. Encroachments have not been reviewed by the Corps.

U
Unauthorized encroachments or inappropriate activities noted are likely to inhibit operations
and maintenance, emergency operations, or negatively impact the integrity of the floodwall.

A
Closure structure in good repair. Placing equipment, stoplogs, and other materials are readily
available at all times. Components are clearly marked and installation instructions/
procedures readily available. Trial erections have been accomplished in accordance with the
O&M Manual.

U
Any of the following issues is cause for this rating: Closure structure in poor condition. Parts
missing or corroded. Placing equipment may not be available within the anticipated warning
time. The storage vaults cannot be opened during the time of inspection. Components of
closure are not clearly marked and installation instructions/ procedures are not readily
available. Trial erections have not been accomplished in accordance with the O&M Manual.

N/A There are no closure structures along this component of the FDR segment / system.

A
Negligible spalling, scaling or cracking. If the concrete surface is weathered or holds
moisture, it is still satisfactory but should be seal coated to prevent freeze/ thaw damage.

M
Spalling, scaling, and open cracking present, but the immediate integrity or performance of
the structure is not threatened. Reinforcing steel may be exposed. Repairs/ sealing is
necessary to prevent additional damage during periods of thawing and freezing.

Location/Remarks/Recommendations

Brush growing into crib structure in some areas. Wood
vegetation within 15' of structure should also be removed.

In several areas, residents have built structures on top of the

crib structure. Limits the ability to inspect the condition of

the structure.

USACE constructed 6' x 8' rock cribs constructed out of
steel pipe frames. The pipe frames have severe rust, and
have broken in some areas. The structures have significant

tilting, and cannot be counted on to perform during a flood
event. The structures were built as temporary structures 25
years ago, and have deteriorated beyond repair. Recommend

Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction
Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System
Inspection Report
Floodwalls
Page 1 of 3
US Army Corps
ofEngineers®


Floodwalls

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of all floodwalls

Rated Item Rating

5.
Tilting. Sliding or U
Settlement of
Geoncr-ef CRIB
Structures
6.
Foundation of A
Concrete
Structures
7.
Monolith Joints N/A
Key: A = Acceptable.

US Army Corps
of Eneineers®

Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations
U Surface deterioration or deep cracks present that may result in an unreliable structure. Any
surface deterioration that exposes the sheet piling or lies adjacent to monolith joints may
indicate underlying reinforcement corrosion and is unacceptable.
replacement of the structures. Non-federal concrete walls
are present in some areas, and appear to be performing well.
A
M
There are no significant areas of tilting, sliding, or settlement that would endanger the
integrity of the structure.
There are areas of tilting, sliding, or settlement (either active or inactive) that need to be
repaired. The maximum offset, either laterally or vertically, does not exceed 2 inches unless
the movement can be shown to be no longer actively occurring. The integrity of the structure
is not in danger.
Significant tilting of the rock crib constructed out of steel
pipe frames. See discussion under crib surfaces above.
Recommend replacement of structure.
U There are areas of tilting, sliding, or settlement (either active or inactive) that threaten the
structure's integrity and performance. Any movement that has resulted in failure of the
waterstop (possibly identified by daylight visible through the joint) is unacceptable.
Differential movement of greater than 2 inches between any two adjacent monoliths, either
laterally or vertically, is unacceptable unless it can be shown that the movement is no longer
active. Also, if the floodwall is of I-wall construction, then any visible or measurable tilting
of the wall toward the protected side that has created an open horizontal crack on the riverside
base of a monolith is unacceptable.
A No active erosion, scouring, or bank caving that might endanger the structure's stability.
M There are areas where the ground is eroding towards the base of the structure. Efforts need to

be taken to slow and repair this erosion, but it is not judged to be close enough to the structure
or to be progressing rapidly enough to affect structural stability before the next inspection.
For the purposes of inspection, the erosion or scour is not closer to the riverside face of the
wall than twice the floodwall's underground base width if the wall is ofL-wall or T-wall
construction: or if the wall is of sheetpile or I-wall construction, the erosion is not closer than
twice the wall's visible height. Additionally, rate of erosion is such that the wall is expected to
remain stabile until the next inspection.

U
Erosion or bank caving observed that is closer to the wall than the limits described above, or is
outside these limits but may lead to structural instabilities before the next inspection.
Additionally, if the floodwall is of I-wall or sheetpile construction, the foundation is
unacceptable if any turf, soil or pavement material got washed away from the landside of the
I-wall as the result of a previous overtopping event.

A
The joint material is in good condition. The exterior joint sealant is intact and cracking/ <<F
desiccation is minimal. Joint filler material and/or waterstop is not visible at any point.

M
The joint material has appreciable deterioration to the point where joint filler material and/or
waterstop is visible in some locations. This needs to be repaired or replaced to prevent
spalling and cracking during freeze/ thaw cycles, and to ensure water tightness of the joint.

M = Minimally Acceptable: Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction

Floodwalls

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System
Inspection Report Page 2 of 3


Floodwalls

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of all floodwalls

Rated Item Rating Rating Guidelines Location/Remarks/Recommendations
U The joint material is severely deteriorated or the concrete adjacent to the monolith joints has
spalled and cracked, damaging the waterstop: in either case damage has occurred to the point
where it is apparent that the joint is no longer watertight and will not provide the intended
level of protection during a flood.
N/A There are no monolith joints in the floodwall.
8. Underseepage N/A A Toe drainage systems and pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FDR segment / <<FWC8>>
Relief Wells/ Toe system stability during high water functioned properly during the last flood event and no
Drainage Systems sediment is observed in horizontal system (if applicable). Nothing is observed which would
indicate that the drainage systems won't function properly during the next flood, and
maintenance records indicate regular cleaning. Wells have been pumped tested within the
past 5 years and documentation is provided.
M Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells are damaged and may become clogged if they
are not repaired. Maintenance records are incomplete or indicate irregular cleaning and pump
testing.
U Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FDR segment /
system stability during flood events have fallen into disrepair or have become clogged. No
maintenance records. No documentation of the required pump testing.
N/A There are no relief wells/ toe drainage systems along this component of the FDR segment /
system.
9. Seepage A A No evidence or history of unrepaired seepage, saturated areas, or boils. <<FWC9>
M Evidence or history of minor unrepaired seepage or small saturated areas at or beyond the
landside toe but not on the landward slope of levee. No evidence of soil transport.
U Evidence or history of active seepage, extensive saturated areas, or boils.

Inspectors must have as-built drawings available during the inspection so that the lateral distance to the heel and toe of the floodwalls can be determined in the field.
2 The sponsor should be monitoring any observed movement to verify whether the movement is active or inactive.

Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable: Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction
Floodwalls

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System

Inspection Report Page 3 of 3
US Army Corps
of Engineers@


Photos

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments / systems

-,P

A

Encroachments in the clay levee along Port
Sunlight Road. Excavation of toe of levee
shortens the seepage path and reduces the
stability of the slope. The wall would likely fail
in a flood event.

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System
Inspection Report
Photos
Page 1 of 7
US Army Corps
of Engineers@


Photos

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments / systems

Additional examples of encroachments on the
clay levee along Port Sunlight Drive where the
toe of the levee has been removed or modified
without permission by the residents. Along this
stretch of levee, encroachments are more
common than not.

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System
Inspection Report
Photos
Page 2 of 7
US Army Corps
of Engineers®


Photos

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments / systems

Heavy vegetation on levee. Large vegetation is
present along the crest and within 15 feet of the
toe. All woody vegetation in this zone needs to be
removed. The root balls must be excavated and
backfilled with compacted clay & reseeded.
Vegetation can lead to seepage and piping issues
by creating a pathway along the roots of the trees.
Debris on levee also kills the grass, and makes the
levee more susceptible to erosion.

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System Photos
Inspection Report Page 3 of 7
US Army Corps
of Engineers®


Photos

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments / systems

More examples of unacceptable vegetation within

the 'vegetation free' zone. Grass is the only

acceptable vegetation across the levee and within

15' of the toe.

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System
Inspection Report
Photos
Page 4 of 7
US Army Corps
of Engineers@


Photos

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems

-47,

Areas of sparse vegetation where erosion is more likely. The photo on the left shows an area of rodent activity. Rodent holes need to
be backfilled to prevent seepage pathways.

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System Photos
Inspection Report Page 5 of7
US Army Corpsof En.-ineers@


Photos

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments / systems

2>

1 '

Photos depicting the condition of the rock cribs
along Lakeshore Drive. The steel frames have
rusted, and the cribs are showing significant
tilting.

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System Photos
US Army Corps
Inspection Report Page 6 of 7
of Engineers@


Photos

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments I systems

Steel frame has significant rust, and has broken in
several areas. This structure would not likely last
through another major storm event.

41

Fo Dum t

InspDmaeR dction Repor nt Pageem7Poto7
US Army Corps
of Engineers@


Levee Embankments

For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments / systems

1If there is significant growth on the levee that inhibits the inspection of animal burrows or other items, the inspection should be ended until this item is corrected.

2Detailed survey elevations are normally required during Periodic Inspections, and whenever there are obvious visual settlements.
3The decision on whether or not USACE inspectors should enter a pipe to perform a detailed inspection must be made at the USACE District level. This decision should be made
in conjunction with the District Safety Office, as pipes may be considered confined spaces. This decision should consider the age of the pipe, the diameter of the pipe, the apparent
condition ofthe pipe, and the length of the pipe. If a pipe is entered for the purposes of inspection, the inspector should record observations with a video camera in order that the
condition ofthe entire pipe, including all joints, can later be assessed. Additionally, the video record provides a baseline to which future inspections can be compared.

Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. N/A = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction
Levee Embankments

Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System

SInspection Report Page 5 of 5
US Army Corps
of Engineers®