HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 20-22 E. Lake Street and Brown Park Engineering and Constructability City of McCall
RESOLUTION 20-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MCCALL, IDAHO, ADOPTING THEE. LAKE STREET
AND BROWN PARK ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTABILITY EVALUATION,
PROVIDING FOR RELATED MATTERS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The City and McCall Redevelopment Agency entered into a Planning, Design and
Engineering Agreement for the Waterfront Improvement Projects; and
WHEREAS, the City entered in tasks orders with Horrocks Engineering to prepare design and
engineering for E. Lake Street and Brown Park Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the agreement identified the City as the Project Manager and McCall Redevelopment
Agency as the funding source; and
WHEREAS, the result is the final report E. Lake Street and Brown Park Engineering and
Constructability Evaluation that identifies four Project areas, provides timelines and cost estimates;
and
WHEREAS, the McCall Redevelopment Agency adopted the E. Lake Street and Brown Park
Engineering and Constructability Evaluation on September 22, 2020.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and City Council of the City of McCall,
Valley County, Idaho that:
E. Lake Street and Brown Park Engineering and Constructability Evaluation is adopted, and a copy
of the Report is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and by this reference incorporated herein.
This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval.
Adopted this 8th day of OFtpbmjQ, 0.
47
Tom. ��M4 Robert Giles, Mayor
AT ES
BessieJo Wa 'r, City man%"
1
Table of Contents
Project Purpose and Background ............................................................................................... 3
Proposed Project Improvements ................................................................................................ 4
Project #1A – Brown Park Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization ......................................... 4
Permitting............................................................................................................................ 5
Schedule, Benefits, and Estimate ....................................................................................... 6
Project #1B – E. Lake Street Shoreline and Water Improvements .......................................... 6
Permitting............................................................................................................................ 8
Schedule, Benefits, and Estimate ....................................................................................... 8
Project #2 – Brown Park Improvements .................................................................................. 8
Permitting............................................................................................................................ 9
Schedule, Benefits, and Estimate ......................................................................................10
Project #3 – E. Lake Street Improvements ............................................................................11
Conceptual Stormwater Improvements ..............................................................................12
Permitting...........................................................................................................................14
Schedule, Benefits, and Estimate ......................................................................................14
Geotechnical Investigation ........................................................................................................14
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................15
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Overview
Figure 2. Shoreline Deterioration
Figure 3. E. Lake Street Shoreline and Water Improvements
Figure 4. Payette Lake Swim Lanes
Figure 5. Conceptual Brown Park Improvements
Figure 6. Examples of Elevated Platforms
Figure 7. Conceptual E. Lake Street Improvements
Figure 8. E. Lake Street Typical Section
Figure 9. Conceptual Stormwater Areas
2
List of Tables
Table 1. Project #1A Cost Estimate
Table 2. Project #1B Conceptual Cost Estimate
Table 3. Project #2 Conceptual Cost Estimate
Table 4. Project #3 Conceptual Cost Estimate
Table 5. Project Cost and Construction Overview
Appendices
Appendix A - Riprap Design Procedure
Appendix B - City of McCall Brown Park and E. Lake Street Improvement Schedule
Appendix C – Detailed Conceptual Project Cost Estimates
Appendix D - Geotechnical Report
3
Project Purpose and Background
Horrocks Engineers has been working with the McCall Redevelopment Agency (MRA) and City
of McCall staff to further develop the conceptual improvements of E. Lake Street, from Fir Street
to Hemlock Street, Brown Park, and the adjacent shoreline. This work, and the associated
findings, comprise the E. Lake Street and Brown Park Improvements Engineering and
Constructability Evaluation, which builds off of the McCall Lakefront Design Development and
Decision Study from October 2006.
The 2006 study developed concepts to improve the McCall lakefront and identified a series of
projects to be completed, with funding from the MRA. Since that time, the MRA and the City
have delivered several of these projects, greatly enhancing the lake frontage, park facilities,
stormwater, landscaping, lighting, public art, sidewalks and pathways, and streets within McCall.
The MRA has approximately $1.7 million left in funding that is available for the E. Lake Street
and Brown Park improvements. Access to this funding sunsets in September 2021. The
purpose of the current Engineering and Constructability Evaluation is to help the MRA and City
determine how to best use the available funding within the allotted timeframe.
Horrocks has identified and evaluated 4 different project areas for this study, which can be seen
in Figure 1 on the following page. Project #1A is known as the Shoreline Promenade and
Stabilization project. This project area includes the shoreline adjacent to Brown Park, which has
signs of damage and failure from wave action caused by wind and motorized watercraft. The
proposed improvements include:
• Stabilizing and protecting the existing slope and bank along the shoreline.
• Incorporating larger decorative rock features into the stabilization to improve the
aesthetics.
• Improving the ability for the public to interact with the lake at the Brown Park shoreline.
Project #1B, known as the E. Lake Street Shoreline and Water Improvements, includes:
• Improvements to the shoreline adjacent to E. Lake Street,
• Increasing access and visibility of the lake,
• Adding recreational use options and water features,
• And improvements to the overall aesthetics of the area.
The shoreline making up Project #1A, is also the western limits of Brown Park, which is the
focus for Project #2. Brown Park is a family friendly park with a playground, open areas for
gatherings, and dock access. The proposed Brown Park improvements include:
• Revitalizing the playground area and equipment,
• Improving the pathway,
• Enhancing the pathway access from E. Lake Street,
• And creating additional park amenities for improved lake viewing and gathering areas.
Proposed improvements to E. Lake Street, between Fir Street and Hemlock Street, create
Project #3 which include:
• New pavement,
• On-street parking,
• Enhanced streetscape features,
• Stormwater improvements, and
• New pathways, sidewalks, and ADA facilities.
4
Overall, this project will improve connectivity from downtown McCall and Legacy Park to Brown
Park and the lakefront areas around the marina, while also providing a more vibrant area for
public use.
The results of the E. Lake Street and Brown Park Improvements Engineering and
Constructability Evaluation will be used to assist the City of McCall in the planning, future
design, and budgeting for the four projects identified.
Proposed Project Improvements
Project #1A – Brown Park Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
As previously mentioned, approximately 450’ of shoreline along the west side of Brown Park
has been deteriorating due to impacts from waves caused by winds and motorized watercraft.
The existing shoreline protection was installed in 2001, and since then the materials have
gradually migrated from their installed locations down the slope and further into the lake. The
smaller riprap material has been washed away from the edge of the existing pathway and away
from the larger rocks, leaving voids and causing the larger rocks to shift. In the photos shown in
Figure 2 on the following page, one from the 2006 McCall Lakefront Improvements Report and
the other from a site visit in August 2020, the displacement of existing materials is apparent.
FIGURE 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
5
The proposed work to mitigate the bank and slope deterioration includes partial removal of the
existing material and placement of a combination of new and existing material to provide an
overall better graded intermixture, installed in a sufficient way to stabilize and protect the bank
and slope. The design rock size was determined based on the design wave height and average
bank slope. In addition to the rock designed to reestablish the shoreline, larger decorative rock
will be placed to provide better access points and aesthetics along the water front. Appendix A
shows the riprap design procedure as well as the proposed typical sections for the shoreline
stabilization and improvements.
Permitting
The shoreline stabilization at Brown Park, Project #1A, will be advanced as a modification of the
original permit (NWW-012101650). In consultation with the US Army Corps of Engineers,
Horrocks has been directed to develop an application to seek a Nation Wide Permit(NWP) #3 to
conduct maintenance of the original works. Project #1A can be completed under a NWP#3 if the
maintenance of the original works is constrained to the footprint of the original work thereby
alleviating the need for any further studies. Additionally, engineering justification supporting the
revised design will be documented in the application allowing for the new design to be accepted
as maintenance. The timing of obtaining the NWP#3 is assumed to be approximately 30 to 45
days once the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) deems the permit application as
complete. Horrocks assumes the application will be assembled when sufficient design detail is
known with the final design of Project #1A. Horrocks submitted the permit application to the
USACE on August 11, 2020 and received an approved 404 permit on September 1, 2020.
The Encroachment and Floodplain permit were also submitted, to Idaho Department of Lands
(IDL) and the City of McCall Floodplain Manager, respectively, at the beginning of August. The
approved permits are anticipated to be received prior to construction beginning in October,
2020.
FIGURE 2. SHORELINE DETERIORATION (CIRCA 2006 LEFT [1], 2020 RIGHT)
6
Because the ground disturbance for Project #1A is less than 1.0 acre, the owner will not need to
seek coverage under the Construction General Permit (NPDES). Additionally, a Short Term
Activity permit from the Department of Environmental Equality will not be needed, as no
dewatering activities are considered as part of this project.
Geotechnical borings for design of the future Brown Park platforms, at the Brown Park shoreline
and included in Project #2, will be located above the ordinary high-water elevation. Therefore,
additional permitting for those borings will not be required.
Schedule, Benefits, and Estimate
Project #1A construction will have to be completed when Payette Lake is at the low pool
elevation, but prior to the extreme winter conditions that occur in McCall. Therefore, the
recommended timeline for completion of Project #1A includes final design in summer 2020 and
construction in fall 2020. This can be seen in the City of McCall Brown Park and E. Lake Street
Improvements Schedule in Appendix B. Completing this project in 2020 ensures that MRA
funds can be used before they sunset in fall 2021.
The benefits of implementing Project #1A include:
• Restoration of the failing shoreline prior to Brown Park improvements
• Improved useable interface between the park and lake
• Recreational benefits including swimming, fishing, kayaking, etc.
• Improved water quality and erosion control
• Aesthetic improvements to create a shoreline promenade with viewing area
• Improvement shoreline stability and safety
A summary of the estimated project costs for Project #1A are presented in Table 1 below. The
project was advertised for bidding, and the costs below reflect the unit prices from the low
bidder, anticipating the contract will be awarded. A complete cost estimate for Project # 1A can
be found in Appendix C.
Table 1. Project #1A Cost Estimate
Project #1B – E. Lake Street Shoreline and Water Improvements
The E. Lake Street Shoreline and Water Improvements project includes revitalization of the
shoreline adjacent to E. Lake Street and installation of water features, such as wave dissipaters,
docks, and swimming lanes, as seen in Figure 3 on the following page. Enhancements to the
shoreline will create more useable space and better access for users wanting to swim, kayak,
paddle board, or lounge on the beach. These improvements will also provide more connectivity
between the marina facilities and the shoreline.
Overall Construction Costs $432,460
Design Engineering Costs $80,928
Construction Engineering and Inspection $21,623
Project #1A Total $535,011
Project #1A - Shoreline Promenade and
Stabilization
7
The City has had success implementing similar water features along other areas of Payette
Lake. This includes swim lanes installed in front of Rotary Park, shown in Figure 4 below. With
the addition of the water features presented in Project #1B, and the improved accessibility with
Project #3, this area will draw more visitors and will be better utilized, achieving some of the
goals previously mentioned in the 2006 study.
FIGURE 4. PAYETTE LAKE SWIM LANES
FIGURE 3. E. LAKE STREET SHORELINE AND WATER IMPROVEMENTS
8
Permitting
The E. Lake Street Shoreline and Water Improvements project will be developed as a separate
permitting effort from the permit for Project #1A. This permitting effort assumes that a NWP#13
will be obtained for shoreline stabilization and no shoreline stabilization waiver will be required
(exceedance of the NWP#13 tolerances). A National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
clearance will need to be obtained to support the permit application. A cultural resources
pedestrian survey and report will support obtaining the Section 106 clearance. The timing of
obtaining the NWP#13 is assumed to be approximately 45 days once the US Army Corps of
Engineers deems the permit application as complete. Horrocks assumes the application will be
assembled when sufficient design detail is known in winter 2020/2021. Final design of the
project will include completion of the Section 106 cultural resources survey in summer/fall 2020.
Schedule, Benefits, and Estimate
Project #1B implementation is dependent on available funding. However, the proposed
schedule in Appendix B shows design of Project #1B in winter 2021, with construction occurring
spring/summer in 2021. This will be explored further with the separate final design project for
these improvements.
The benefits of Project #1B include:
• Improved access to Payette Lake
• Improved lake viewing areas
• Additional recreational benefits for swimming and kayaking
• Aesthetic improvements to the shoreline
A summary of the estimated conceptual design and construction costs for Project #1B are
presented in Table 2 below. A complete conceptual cost estimate for Project #1B can be found
in Appendix C.
TABLE 2. PROJECT #1B CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
Project #2 – Brown Park Improvements
Brown Park is one of the many lakefront parks in McCall, providing breathtaking views of
Payette Lake and Brundage Mountain, as well as open space for gatherings and activities.
Brown Park also has playground facilities and a pathway along the shoreline. Although currently
accessible from E. Lake Street, the City of McCall would like to renovate the park to provide
Overall Construction Costs $446,349
Design Engineering Costs $44,635
Construction Engineering and Inspection $35,708
Project #1B Total $526,691
Project #1B - Lake Street Shoreline and
Water Improvements
9
better connectivity and improve access to Payette Lake. Additionally, upgrades to the
playground equipment are desired.
Horrocks Engineers has been working with Baer Design Group and the City of McCall Parks
Department on a conceptual revitalization of Brown Park. The park is located on the former
McCall Mill site, which contains some unidentified fill material. In order to limit disruption to this
material, limited regrading work is proposed. The major enhancements include relocation of the
playground with installation of new equipment, realignment of the pathway and increasing the
walkable surfaces, installation of more aesthetic materials and landscape features, construction
of elevated platforms over the shoreline, and possibly incorporating public art. The elevated
platforms will create space that can be used for events, recreation, better lake access, and
unobstructed views of the lake and surroundings. Examples can be seen in Figure 6 on the
following page. A conceptual layout of the Brown Park improvements can be seen in Figure 5
below.
FIGURE 5. CONCEPTUAL BROWN PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Permitting
It is assumed that no environmental permitting with the United States Army Corp of Engineers
(USACE) or Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) will be required for the improvements within
Brown Parks, as there are no anticipated impacts to Payette Lake. However, a NWP #3 will be
required for the construction of the elevated platforms within the shoreline. The platform
foundations will be constructed below the OHWM. The timing of obtaining the NWP#3 is
assumed to be approximately 30 to 45 days once the (USACE) deems the permit application as
complete. Horrocks assumes the application will be assembled when sufficient design detail is
known with the final design of Project #1B. Additionally, a floodplain permit will likely be needed
as work along the shoreline will occur within the floodplain.
10
Schedule, Benefits, and Estimate
Ideally, Project #2 will be fully designed in winter/spring of 2021 and constructed in the
spring/summer of 2021. This can be seen in the City of McCall Brown Park and E. Lake Street
Improvements Schedule in Appendix B. The City of McCall has $230,000 available from a Land
and Water Conservation Funds grant, to use in conjunction with any MRA funds left after Project
#1A, and possibly #1B, are completed.
The benefits of Project #2 include:
• Improved useable interface between Brown Park and Payette lake
• Recreational benefits with improved park amenities and pathway
• Improved lake viewing areas
• Aesthetic and safety improvements with new playground equipment
A summary of the estimated conceptual design and construction costs for Project #2 are
presented in Table 3 on the following page. A complete conceptual cost estimate for Project #2
can be found in Appendix C.
FIGURE 6. EXAMPLES OF ELEVATED PLATFORMS
11
TABLE 3. PROJECT #2 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
Project #3 – E. Lake Street Improvements
E. Lake Street was one of the originally considered projects in the McCall Lake Front
Improvements Design Develop and Decision study from 2006. Desired improvements previously
identified included pedestrian pathways along E. Lake Street to Brown Park, a boardwalk and
overlook system, and general character and aesthetic enhancements such as street furnishings,
signing, pedestrian lighting, landscaping, trees, special paving accents, interpretive exhibits, and
other features [1]. Some of the previous conceptual improvements to E. Lake Street have been
further evaluated and advanced with this study.
A conceptual horizontal street layout has been developed and can be seen below in Figure 7.
The proposed street section includes a 10-foot pathway on the west side, 2-foot curb and gutter
along both sides of the street, new pavement for a 16-foot shared travel and bike lane and 16-
foot parking lane, and a 6’ sidewalk on the east side. This proposed street section is depicted in
Figure 8 on the following page.
The proposed E. Lake Street improvements also consider better pedestrian accessibility,
including ADA facilities, increasing on-street parking, and addressing stormwater containment
and treatment. In addition to the roadway and pedestrian necessities, the conceptual design
includes proposed streetscape improvements, such as aesthetic upgrades to materials, street
lights, street trees and planters, and street furnishings.
Overall Construction Costs $1,961,164
Design Engineering Costs $294,175
Construction Engineering and Inspection $196,116
Project #2 Total $2,451,455
Project #2 - Brown Park Improvements
FIGURE 7. CONCEPTUAL E. LAKE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
12
Conceptual Stormwater Improvements
As mentioned previously, stormwater containment and treatment was considered as part of the
conceptual E. Lake Street improvements. A high level analysis of pre and post development
stormwater impacts was done for this study. The following assumptions were used:
• First flush 0.81” of water within the project area, for the 24 hour event, will be
stored and treated on site.
• The remaining events will be conveyed through a high-flow bypass system to
preexisting outfall locations.
• No additional storage for offsite runoff will be required.
• Stormwater calculations are only for improved pavement areas and does not
include the large residential and grassy areas to the east.
• The offsite drainage areas will need to be collected at the back of the proposed
sidewalk on the east side of E. Lake Street with catch basins.
• All existing outfall locations will either be retained and protected or perpetuated.
• High flow bypassing to the existing outfall structure locations will be required.
• A separation or filtration facility will be used to treat the high flow runoff prior to
discharging to Payette Lake.
The initial analysis of the stormwater runoff for E. Lake Street revealed that the existing
stormwater treatment systems are roadside borrow ditches and existing sand and grease traps.
There are also existing catch basins that collect stormwater and directly discharge to Payette
Lake. As part of the E. Lake Street reconstruction, it is proposed that additional stormwater
treatment systems be constructed in the form of detention or retention facilities such as swales
or bioretention planters/tree wells. Geotechnical investigations, which can be found in Appendix
D, reported poor infiltration results for E. Lake Street. An Infiltration rate was measured to be
less than 0.01 inches per hour at boring B-8 (MW) on the City’s property along E. Lake Street.
This test result indicates infiltration for stormwater design is likely not practical at this location.
Therefore, seepage bed type stormwater facilities are not recommended in this location.
Improvements to the existing storm drainage catch basins and sand and grease traps are
proposed.
FIGURE 8. E. LAKE STREET TYPICAL SECTION
13
When looking at the Conceptual Stormwater Areas, Figure 9 below, it is clear that all water
within the project limits eventually flows to a low point near the north side of Mile High Marina.
To evaluate the post-development stormwater, the proposed E. Lake Street project was split
into three separate drainage areas, signified by the three different colors in Figure 9. For the
green and blue areas, it is recommended to collect and route the stormwater to proposed
detention/retention systems located in the City owned proposed sidewalk and traffic calming
curb bulb-outs. These systems may include either swales or bioretention planters/tree wells.
These facilities will require high flow bypassing to downstream discharge locations due to the
infiltration rates found in the geotechnical investigation. For the red area, it is recommended that
the existing catch basin system be modified to accommodate the proposed E. Lake Street
typical section and not construct additional pretreatment systems. This recommendation is the
most practical due to the low elevation at this location compared to the estimated high ground
water elevation. Due to the low elevation, there is very little separation from the high ground
water elevation, assumed to be the high pool elevation of 4992.59. The elevation difference in
this location is less than four feet, which leaves very little vertical room for a subsurface
treatment facilities. The geotechnical investigation confirmed that there are shallow ground
water elevations in this area of the project.
FIGURE 9. CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER AREAS
Horrocks Engineers also proposes constructing additional stormwater treatment systems for the
existing outfall locations that directly discharge to Payette Lake. These systems would include
new sand and grease traps, the Vortech separators, or a storm filter system. Stormwater that is
collected currently by the roadside borrow ditch that runs on the east side of E. Lake Street will
be replaced with a pedestrian sidewalk. To prevent significant stormwater from collecting and
pooling behind the sidewalk it is proposed to add additional catch basins behind the sidewalk at
various locations. The full design of the proposed treatment systems will be developed during
the design stage for the respective construction project.
14
Permitting
It is assumed that no environmental permitting with the IDL will be required for the completion of
Project #3, as there are no anticipated encroachments to Payette Lake. However, a Floodplain
permit will likely be needed as there is a potential for some work to occur within the floodplain,
and coordination with the USACE will likely be required to discuss any changes to the direct
discharge to Payette Lake.
Schedule, Benefits, and Estimate
Depending on available funding, the proposed schedule for Project #3 includes design spring
through winter 2021. Construction would then follow based on available funding. This can be
seen in the City of McCall Brown Park and E. Lake Street Improvements Schedule in Appendix
B.
The benefits of Project #3 include:
• Continued connectivity between downtown McCall and the lakefront
• Improved pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation along the lakefront
• Preservation and enhancement of lake views and access
• Improved aesthetics and streetscape features
• Additional parking near Brown Park and Payette Lake
• Updated stormwater conveyance and treatment systems
A summary of the estimated conceptual design and construction costs for Project #3 are
presented in Table 4 below. The Project #3 cost estimates include estimated construction costs
for improvements to E. Lake Street, between Pine St and Fir St. These improvements including
adding pavement and vertical curb within the on-street parking area, which is currently gravel.
A complete conceptual cost estimate for Project #3 can be found in Appendix C.
TABLE 4. PROJECT #3 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
Geotechnical Investigation
A geotechnical investigation was performed by GeoEngineers to support the design and
construction for all projects. The geotechnical investigation included the drilling for a total of
eight borings, installing one piezometer, completing an infiltration test and probing along the
bank of Brown Park, and laboratory testing. A summary of the conclusions and
recommendations identified in the geotechnical report is provided below. The complete
geotechnical report can be found in Appendix D.
Overall Construction Costs $2,160,028
Design Engineering Costs $324,004
Construction Engineering and Inspection $216,003
Project #3 Total $2,700,035
Project #3 - E. Lake Street Improvements
15
• The slope stability analysis results indicate an adequate slope stability factor of safety for
the static condition, assuming a minimum required factor of safety of 1.25 for slopes not
supporting structures. The results indicate the proposed rip-rap slope stabilization
increases the static factor of safety by about 0.13 to 0.15 to a minimum factor of safety
of approximately 1.42 (static).
• Soft organic soils were encountered at the Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization site
and the Brown Park site. The site soils are compressible, and consideration should be
made to design the structures to accommodate the anticipated settlement which could
result from constructing on very loose/soft soils. Providing geotechnical
recommendations for structures is not included in our current scope of services.
Settlement should be anticipated if site grades are raised for these projects.
• Site soils contain appreciable amount of fines (percent passing the No. 200 sieve), are
highly moisture sensitive and can become significantly disturbed from earthwork
conducted during or soon after periods of wet weather, or when the moisture content of
the soil is more than a few percentage points above optimum. Construction planning and
practices should consider wet weather and disturbance to native soils if the project is
constructed during the wet season (typically November to May).
• Shallow groundwater is present, and dewatering could be required if excavations extend
more than about 3 to 4 feet below existing site grades. Shallow groundwater should also
be considered for stormwater facility design.
• A measured infiltration rate of less than 0.01 inches per hour was acquired in a borehole
infiltration test completed near boring B-8 (MW) on the City’s property along E. Lake
Street. The test indicates infiltration for stormwater design is likely not practical at that
location.
Recommendations
Horrocks and City staff presented findings to the MRA board on June 23 and August 18, 2020
with initial recommendations of completing Project #1A first and then Project #2. The board
provided feedback, noting their preference of completing all shoreline and water improvements
from the Mile High Marina to Brown Park. Horrocks revised the project limits and classification
to include a 1A and 1B project that encompasses all proposed improvements along the
shoreline.
Based on the conceptual cost estimates, and given the constraint on the available MRA funding,
Horrocks recommended completing final design of Project #1A so that the shoreline stabilization
measures can be constructed in fall 2020. This is the only time that Project #1A can be
implemented before the MRA funds sunset. With approval from the MRA Board, this project was
taken through final design and the bidding process and the contract will be awarded pending
final approval from the board and City Council.
As can be seen in the Project Cost and Construction Overview in Table 5 on the following page,
there is enough MRA funding to complete design and construction of Project #1A and #1B.
Although Project #2 cannot be fully funded by the MRA, Horrocks recommends finalizing the
Brown Park improvements and constructing them in summer/fall 2021. This project already has
supplemental funding and the design can be finalized quickly, making it a clear choice for
16
implementation. Completing Project #1A, #1B, #2 back to back also limits the construction
impacts to future improvements.
TABLE 5. PROJECT COST AND CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW
The completion of Project #3 depends highly on additional available funding sources.
Constructing Project #1B prior to Project #3 poses some difficulties as temporary anchorage of
docks and access ways will be required before the proposed pathway is built. However, these
temporary connections can be designed to connect the new facilities to E. Lake Street until such
time that Project #3 constructs the permanent connections. Project #3 cannot be constructed
with the MRA funds available, therefore Horrocks recommends completing the other presented
projects, and removing #3 from the MRA funded project schedule, with the intent that the E.
Lake Street improvements will be implemented by other funding sources, such as grants or City
department funds.
Project Description Starting Funds Year
Complete
Total Project
Cost Funds Remaining
1A - Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization $1,700,000.00 2020 $535,011.00 $1,164,989.00
1B - Lake St Shoreline and Water Improvements $1,164,989.00 2021 $526,691.37 $638,297.63
2 - Brown Park Improvements ($230,000 in LWCF)$868,297.63 2021 $2,451,455.38 ($1,583,157.75)
3 - E. Lake Street Improvements -?$2,700,034.56 -
Project Cost and Construction Overview
17
References
[1] The Otak Team, CH2M Hill, McCall Lake Front Improvements, An Urban Renewal Project,
Design Development and Decision Package, October 2006.
HORROCKS
II'II maw
ENGINEERS
To: Kurt Wolf
From: Kelly Hoopes
Date: August 12, 2020
Subject: Riprap Design Procedure
2775 W Navigator Dr , Suite 210
Meridian, ID 83642
208-895-2520
www horrocks corn
Memorandum
Methodology — The riprap design is based on current methodology provided in the National
Engineering Handbook (NEH), Part 650, and Engineering Field Handbook, to withstand the
design wave.
Wave height and bank protection limits — The design wave was determined using wind data
from the McCall airport. Average daily two -minute wind speed was statistically analyzed to
determine a 100-year wind event and resulted in a design wind speed of 46 MPH. Taking into
consideration high boat traffic, ice potential, and distance to valuable property, a safety factor
of 1.67 was used to produce a design wave height of 3.13ft. With an average bank slope of 3:1,
the bank protection should extend from 2.81 below the normal low -lake elevation to 3.13 feet
above high water. This would result in protection from elevation 4984.19 to 4995.72.
Riprap size and layer thickness — Rock sizing is based on the design wave height and average
bank slope. Depending on if spherical rock or cubical rock is used, the required rock size is
different. Cubical rock with angular edges interlocks better and provides more protection and
the rocks can be smaller. Average Rock Size Diameter (Dso) for spherical and cubical rock, is
calculated to be 13.78" and 11.79" respectively. (While this seems a small difference, the
average cubical rock should be 117 lb and the average spherical rock should weigh 188 lbs, or
1.6 heavier.) The minimum thickness of riprap layer should be 2 times the Dso size of the rock
or 28 inches thick for spherical rock and 24 inches thick for cubical rock.
Riprap cross-section — Appropriate key -in toe design and an appropriate filter layer is critical
to the longevity of a riprap layer. A geotextile material will be used to prevent erosion that may
undermine the revetment. Based on our latest conversations with you and local contractors, we
have revised the cross section that those below. We had discussed using a rolled mat
reinforcing layer. The main benefit of this layer is if there are not sufficient large boulders for
the length of the toe (approximately 120). If there are sufficient boulders, we recommend using
the following riprap cross -sections to provide the bank protection.
HORROCKS
1111111111111111111116- IIEII
E N G I N 1
2775 W Navigator Dr . Suite 210
Meridian, ID 83642
208-895-2520
www horrocks com
PLACE A ROW OF APPROXIMATELY TW0
30"-36" BOULDERS TO FILL IN GAPS
S0 SMALLER MATERIAL DOES NOT
WASH AWAY.
PLACE AB• TO 60' BOULDERS
TO ACT AS FOOTING FOR RIPRAP
LAYER. PLACE TOP DF ROCKS
AT ELEV.4986.50
BACKFILL BOULDERS TO TOP OF
ROCK 0H1 DOWNHILL 510E
EXISTING GROL9O�
EXISTSLOPE VARIES
PLACE 36,46%1 AB'Alp GREATER
BOLL0ER5 IN DECORATIVE FASHION
KITH FLATTEST 510E U' TO ACHIEVE
COMPLETE COVERAGE OF SNORELIIE
PLACE A ROW OF APPROXIMATELY TWO
30'-36• BOILOERS TO FILL IN GAPS
50 SMALLER MATERIAL DOES NOT
WASH AWAY
PLACE 411 10 60' 00ILOERS
TO ACT A5 FOOTING FOR RIPRAP
AT ER1Evv.. 89B6.59 OF ROCKS
BACKFILL BOULDERS TO TOP OF
ROCK ON 00WINILL 510E
EXISTING GROuNDVARIES
SLOPE VARIES
TOTAL BANK STABILIZATION THICKNESS SHALL
BE A MINIMUM OF 30 INCHES OF RIPRAP 0.15.
HERE 11 FEET (MEASURED HORIZONTALLY/ EXTENDING FROM THE OHWM TOWARD
THE WALKWAY ABOVE ELEVATION 4992.59 CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED. A SINGLE
LAYER OF BOULDERS REACHING ELEVATION 4995.70 MUST BE ADDED.
11.0'
�T '._
TC—
�- GEOTE zTIEE MATERIAL
APPROXIMATE EKISTING
BAN( SLOPE WITH
STEPS
APPROXIMATE TOP
OF EXISTING PATHWAY
EL E VAT 10N.4994.00
sHWM T� - - -
LOW P001 14997.00 FT/
BE0 BOULDERS WITH 4" D. MATERIAL
WITH AN 9" MINIMUM THICKNESS. FILL
ALL v010 SPACES BETWEEN BOULDERS
WITH A" 0. MATERIAL WHERE A 15-
O. WILL NOT riT
2-•
RIPRAP D.-1S'
GEOT E XI ILE MATERIAL
• SLOPE SHOWN (5 APPROXIMATE ARO vARIES.ExCAv8TE
ONLY AS NEEDED ID ACHIEVE PROPER INSTALLATION OF
RIPRAP AND WINDERS.
HERE II FEET (MEASURED HORIZONTALLY/ EXTENDING FROM THE OHWM T0W9I0
THE WALKWAY ABOVE ELEVATION 4992.59 CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED. A SINGLE
LAYER OF BOULDERS REACHING ELEVATION 4995.70 MUST BE ADDED.
LOW P001. 99T.00 FT/
IWINf[� - - -
APPROXIMATE TOP Or
EXISIINC PATHWAY
ELEVAl10N-4994.00
HORROCKS
immemme.. 111II "miim""
ENGINEERS
2775 W Navigator Dr . Suite 210
Meridian. ID 83642
208-895-2520
www horrocks corn
Appendix
Sources
Young and Verhagen, 1996, "The Growth of fetch limited waves in water of finite depth. Part
1. Total energy and peak frequency"
Young, 1997, "The growth rate of finite depth wind -generated wave"
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1984 "Shore Protection Manual"
U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration "HEC-11"
Calculations
Wave Design
Length of Unobstructed Fetch from Brown Park (F): 10084.8 ft (1.91 miles)
Average Depth Along Fetch (d): 172.8ft
Gravity (g): 32.174 ft/s2
Factor of Safety: 1.67 (determined by ice, boat traffic, and distance to valuable property)
Table 1: Historical Yearly Wind Data McCall Airport (MPH) 2-minute max
2 Minute Max
1998
36.9
1999
40
2000
40.9
2001
34.9
2002
42.9
2003
36
2004
40.9
2005
32
2006
36
2007
38
2008
38
2009
38
2010
36
2011
36
2012
38.9
2013
33.1
2014
38
2015
40.9
2016
40
2017
45
2018
35.1
2019
29.1
2020
31.1
HORROCKS
41111111111P 11111 .1M1.11111�
E NGINFERS
2775 W Navigator Dr., Suite 210
Meridian, ID 83642
208-895-2520
www horrocks com
ECHO OF INPUT:
Stream
n = 23
Q(1) = 36.9. Q(2) = 40, Q(3) = 40.9. Q(4) = 34.9, Q(5) = 42 9, 0(6). 36, Q(7) = 40 9. Q(8) = 32. Q(9) = 36, Q(10) = 38, Q(11) =
36. Q(15) = 38 9. 0(16) = 331 0(17) = 38 0(18) = 40 9. 0(19) = 40. Q(20) = 45. Q(21) = 351. Q(22) = 29 1 0(23). 31 1
skew coefficient lot the loganthmsj C, _ -0 487
38, Q(12)= 38. Q(13)= 36 0(141
Return period T
WI
Probability P
(percent)
Frequency
factor K
Y -lop (Q)
Flood discharge 0
(era)
1 05
95 2
-1 77
1 489
31
111
901
-1322
151
32
1 25
80
-0 809
1 533
I 34
4
2
50
0 08
1 573
37
5
5
20
0.856
1608
41
6
10
10
I 1.218
1 624
42
7
25
4
1572
164
44
8
50
2
1784
165
45
9
100
1
1964
1658
46
10
200
0 5
2 121
1.665
46
EMZI
Reset
Figure 1: Log Pearson Type III Analysis for 100-year Event
Design Wind Speed (Ua) of 46 (MPH), using 100-year event. Ua = 67.47fps
Non -Dimensional Fetch: c=gF/(Ua)2 = 71.28
Young Section 2.1
Non -Dimensional Water Depth: D = gd/(Ua)2 = 1.22 Young Section 2.2
Non -Dimensional Energy: e= 3.64*10-3*(tanh(A1)*tanh[B1/tanh(Aj)])1.74 Young-Verhagen Eq.
Where
Ai=.493D'75 = 0.5728
131=3.13*10-3*c.57 = 0.0356
e=1.0963 * 10-5
Energy: E = e(Ua)4/g2 = 0.2194
Significant Wave Height (Hs): 4(E)'5 = 1.87ft
Design Wave Height (Ho) = 1.87 * Factor of Safety = 3.13ft
Protection Limits
Young-Verhagen Eq. 26
Young-Verhagen Eq. 27
Young Section 2.1
Young-Verhagen Section 9.1.3
HORROCKS
-MOM 041
ENGINEERS
Wave Period (T) = .559(Ua* Ho)(13) = 3.33s
Wavelength (L) = 5.12T2 = 56.78ft
Average Revetment Slope is equal to 3:1. The range is 1.67:1 to 4.5:1
Design wave height/wavelength: Ho/L = 0.0551
2775 W. Navigator Dr., Suite 210
Meridian, ID 83642
208-895-2520
www horrocks com
ACOE Shore Protection Manual
TR 69 EQ. A20
TR69
Ho/L
z
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
1.5
2.01
1.94
1.86
1.81
1.75
1.71
1.67
1.62
1.55
2
2.00
1.91
1.82
1.74
1.65
1.58
1.50
1.45
1.39
3
1.87
1.73
1.59
1.47
1.35
1.27
1.19
1.13
1.06
4
1.60
1.46
1.32
1.21
1.10
1.01
0.93
0.87
0.82
5
1.33
1.20
1.07
0.98
0.89
0.82
0.75
0.69
0.64
6
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.81
0.73
0.68
0.62
0.58
0.53
10
0.64
0.60
0.56
0.53
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Figure 2: TR69 Relative Run-up Ratio (R/Ho)
Using Ho/L, and Z (revetment slope), a Relative Run-up Ratio (R/Ho) was concluded to be 1.41
Wave Run-up: R = Ho*(R/Ho) = 4.41ft ACOE Shore Protection Manual Vol. 2 Ch. 2
Wave Setup (S): Setup is the lesser of .1 times the wave height (Hs) or .5ft
(S) = 1.87*.1 = .187ft
TR69 II.D.2
Lower Limit: The lower limit for the riprap shall be 1.5 time the Wave Height (Hs), below the
normal low lake elevation for the year for deep water and the lake bottom for the shallower
water. Elevation 4984.19
TR 69 II.D.1
Upper Limit: Ordinary High -Water mark (OHWM) elevation plus the design storm wave
height. (OHWM) is determined to be 4992.49. Upper limit protection will extend to 4995.72
Rock Selection
The size of rock is determined from relationships from relationships of wave heights, wave
velocities, and drag on the rock relative to the stable size of the rock needed to resist these
forces for a given bank slope
Rock Size Wave Height (Hrock) = Hs*Factor of Safety = 3.13ft TR-69 Eq.E14
HORROCKS
simmiw w 11111
E N G I N E E R S
Rock Size Weight (lbs.) Wso= (Factorrock * Gs * Hrock3)/((Gs-1)3*z)
Where Factorrock = 19.5 for cubical rock
=31.2 for spherical rock
Gs = rock specific gravity (usually 2.65)
Z=revetment slope ratio (i.e. 3 for a 3:1 bank slope)
Wso Spherical = 187.97 lb.
Wso Cubical = 117.49 lb.
2775 W Navigator Dr.. Suite 210
Meridian ID 83642
208-895-2520
www horrocks com
Tr-69 Eq. E 14
Factorrock is specific weight of water divided by a rock stability factor. Dumped rock riprap
value of 3.2 is recommended for the rock stability factor (62.4/3.2=19.5). A stability factor of
2.0 was used for the less stable spherical rock.
Rock Size Diameter Dso (inches): Dso = 1.10*( Wso / (Gs * 62.4 lb./ft3))(1/3) * 12(in/ft.)
Dso Spherical: 13.78" TR-69 Figure 9
Dso Cubical: 11.79"
The minimum of thickness of the rock shall be 2 times the Dso size of the rock, but not less than
12 inches, according to Idaho Water Resources.
Figure 3 is less well -graded mixture and tends to be more uniform in size. Figure 4 consists of
well -graded mixture of smaller and larger rock.
Percent Passing
Size' (in.)
100
1.5 x Dso — 2.0 x Dso
85
1.3 x D5o - 1.8 x Dso
50
1.OxDso -1.5xD5o
10
0.8xDso-1.3xDso
Figure 3: Rock Chute Method for Gradation
% Passing
Size of Stone
(inches)
100
2 x d so
60-85
1.5xdso
25 - 50
dso
5-20
0.5xdso
0-5
0.2xdso
Figure 4: EFH 17 Method
ID Task NameDuration Start Finish1Brown Park and Lake Street Evaluation Study/Conceptual Design, TO20-0895 daysThu 4/23/20Wed 9/2/2021. Project Coordination95 daysThu 4/23/20Wed 9/2/203 Notice to Proceed for Lake St & Brown Park Improvements Evaluation0 daysFri 5/8/20Fri 5/8/204 1.1 Project Kickoff Meeting with City of McCall1 dayThu 4/23/20Thu 4/23/205 1.2 Project Management84 daysFri 5/8/20Wed 9/2/2062. Design Elements, Costs, and Alternatives Development81 daysMon 5/11/20Mon 8/31/207 2.1. Develop Conceptual Alternatives and Cost Estimates60 daysMon 5/11/20Fri 7/31/208 2.1.1. Review and Develop Proposed Street Sections40 daysMon 5/11/20Fri 7/3/209 2.1.2. Develop Shoreline Access and Design Concepts (Mile High Marina to Hemlock St)35 daysMon 5/11/20Fri 6/26/2010 2.1.3. Conceptual Brown Park Design and Shoreline Bank Stabilization (Hemlock St to Brown Park)55 daysMon 5/11/20Fri 7/24/2011 2.1.4. Project Construction Permitting Summary35 daysMon 6/8/20Fri 7/24/2012 US Army Corps CWA Permit Consultation and Summary35 daysMon 6/8/20Fri 7/24/2013 2.1.5. Develop Cost Estimates40 daysMon 6/8/20Fri 7/31/20143. Construction Phasing Scenario, Budget, and Schedule45 daysMon 6/8/20Fri 8/7/2015 3.1. Construction Phasing Scenario30 daysMon 6/8/20Fri 7/17/2016 3.2. Project Budget and Schedule15 daysMon 7/20/20Fri 8/7/20174. Public Involvement0 daysTue 8/18/20Tue 8/18/2018 4.1. Presentation to the MRA Board0 daysTue 8/18/20Tue 8/18/20195. Final Study Summary and Recommendations25 daysTue 7/28/20Mon 8/31/2020 5.1. Prepare Draft Summary and Recommendations10 daysTue 7/28/20Mon 8/10/2021 5.2. Prepare Final Summary and Recommendations10 daysTue 8/18/20Mon 8/31/2022Brown Park Shoreline Stabilization Design - Project #1 TO20-0992 daysThu 7/16/20Fri 11/20/2023 Notice to Proceed for Brown Park Shoreline Stabilization Design0 daysThu 8/6/20Thu 8/6/20241. Project Coordination60 daysThu 7/16/20Wed 10/7/2025 1.1 Project Meetings with City of McCall60 daysThu 7/16/20Wed 10/7/2026 1.2 Project Administration60 daysThu 7/16/20Wed 10/7/20272. Final Engineering Design and Production42 daysThu 7/16/20Fri 9/11/20282.1 Shoreline Cross Section10 daysThu 7/16/20Wed 7/29/20292.2 Shoreline Access and Stabilization Design7 daysThu 7/30/20Fri 8/7/20302.3 Project Construction Permitting25 daysMon 8/10/20Fri 9/11/20312.4 Final Design Submittal1 dayMon 8/10/20Mon 8/10/20323. Brown Park Shoreline Stabilziation Final Bid Set21 daysTue 8/11/20Tue 9/8/20333.1 Revise Plans, Specifications and Estimate7 daysTue 8/11/20Wed 8/19/20343.2 Bid Support15 daysWed 8/19/20Tue 9/8/2035Bidding and Construction of Project #1 Improvements68 daysWed 8/19/20Fri 11/20/2036 Project Advertisement20 daysWed 8/19/20Tue 9/15/2037 Pre-Bid Meeting1 dayWed 8/26/20Wed 8/26/2038 Bid Opening 0 daysTue 9/15/20Tue 9/15/2039 Present Bid Results to MRA Board1 dayTue 9/22/20Tue 9/22/2040 Review of Bid Results5 daysWed 9/16/20Tue 9/22/2041 Present Bid Results to MRA Board1 dayTue 9/22/20Tue 9/22/2042 Present Bid Results to City Council1 dayThu 9/24/20Thu 9/24/2043 Notice of Award1 dayFri 9/25/20Fri 9/25/2044 Project Agreement Execution10 daysMon 9/28/20Fri 10/9/2045 Pre-Construction Meeting1 dayFri 10/9/20Fri 10/9/2046 Notice to Proceed1 dayFri 10/9/20Fri 10/9/2047 Construction of Project #1 Improvements 30 daysMon 10/12/20Fri 11/20/2048Lake Street Water Improvements/Shoreline Design and Construction - Project #1B150 daysMon 1/4/21Fri 7/30/2149 1. Project Coordination30 daysMon 1/4/21Fri 2/12/2150 2. Final Engineering Design and Production30 daysMon 2/15/21Fri 3/26/2151 3. Bidding and Construction of Project #4 Improvements90 daysMon 3/29/21Fri 7/30/2152Brown Park Improvements Design and Construction - Project #2150 daysMon 1/4/21Fri 7/30/21531. Project Coordination30 daysMon 1/4/21Fri 2/12/21542. Final Engineering Design and Production30 daysMon 2/15/21Fri 3/26/21553. Bidding and Construction of Project #2 Improvements90 daysMon 3/29/21Fri 7/30/2156Lake Street Improvements Design - Project #3190 daysMon 3/1/21Fri 11/19/21571. Project Coordination190 daysMon 3/1/21Fri 11/19/21582. Final Engineering Design and Production190 daysMon 3/1/21Fri 11/19/215/88/188/188/6Keep9/15KeepMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMayJulSepNovTaskSplitMilestoneSummaryProject SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive SummaryManual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual SummaryStart-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal MilestoneDeadlineProgressManual ProgressCity of McCall Brown Park and Lake Street Improvements SchedulePage 1Project: Brown Park and Lake SDate: Wed 9/16/20
PROJECT BID ITEMS Number SPEC. ITEM NUMBERITEM DESCRIPTIONSupplemental DescriptionUNITESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT1ISPWC 201.4.1.C.1 Removal of ObstructionsDebrisLS 1 2,000.00$ $ 2,000.00 2ISPWC 201.4.1.D.1 Removal of Rock30±" RockSY 400 40.00$ $ 16,000.00 3ISPWC 201.4.1.D.2 Removal of LandscapingSodSY 250 12.00$ $ 3,000.00 4ISPWC 201.4.1.D.3 Removal of GravelSY 1100 9.00$ $ 9,900.00 5ISPWC 201.4.1.D.4 Removal of AsphaltExisting pathway SY 200 20.00$ $ 4,000.00 6ISPWC 201.4.1.G.1 Removal of PipeLF 50 10.00$ $ 500.00 7ISPWC 202.4.1.A.1 ExcavationCY 1800 8.00$ $ 14,400.00 8ISPWC 202.4.5.A.1 Unsuitable Material ExcavationCY 50 10.00$ $ 500.00 9ISPWC 202.4.8.A.1 Dust Abatement WaterMG 200 2.00$ $ 400.00 10ISPWC 206.4.1.H.3ALoose Riprap D50=15"3" - 30" material provided by the City CY 700 35.00$ $ 24,500.00 11ISPWC 206.4.1.H.3BLoose Riprap D50=15"3" - 30" material provided by the Contractor CY 300 106.00$ $ 31,800.00 12ISPWC 1001.4.2.B.1 Stabilized Construction EntranceEA 1 6,000.00$ $ 6,000.00 13ISPWC1003.4.1C.1Silt FenceLF510 3.00$ $ 1,530.00 14ISPWC 1003.4.1.G.1 Fiber/Straw WattlesLF 510 4.00$ $ 2,040.00 15ISPWC 1103.4.1.C.1 Traffic Control Barricades, Type IEA 2 500.00$ $ 1,000.00 16ISPWC 1103.4.1.C.2 Traffic Control Barricades, Type IIIEA 2 500.00$ $ 1,000.00 17ISPWC 1103.4.1.J.1 Traffic Control Maintenance MH 6 30.00$ $ 180.00 18ISPWC 2050.4.1.B.1 Riprap/Erosion Control Geotextile nonwoven need punch fabric 8 oz/sy SY 2000 5.00$ $ 10,000.00 19Special SP-1A Small Boulders - 30" - 36"30" - 36" material provided by the City CY 100 55.00$ $ 5,500.00 20Special SP-1B Small Boulders - 30" - 36"30" - 36" material provided by the Contractor CY 200 95.00$ $ 19,000.00 21Special SP-2A Medium Boulders - 36" - 48" 36" - 48" material provided by the City CY 100 55.00$ $ 5,500.00 22Special SP-2B Medium Boulders - 36" - 48" 36" - 48" material provided by the Contractor CY 400105.00$ $ 42,000.00 23Special SP-3A Large Boulders - 48" - 60"48"> material provided by the City CY 200 85.00$ $ 17,000.00 24Special SP-3B Large Boulders - 48" - 60"48"> material provided by the Contractor CY 550 120.00$ $ 66,000.00 25Special SP-4 Landscape RepairSY 1100 10.00$ $ 11,000.00 26Special SP-5 Decomposed Granite PathwaySY 200 55.00$ $ 11,000.00 27Special SP-6 SurveyingLS 1 2,500.00$ $ 2,500.00 28Special SP-7 Directed Survey (Contingency Allowance)CA 1 5,000.00$ $ 5,000.00 29Special SP-8A Temporary Fencing (Chainlink)LF 150 5.00$ $ 750.00 30Special SP-8B Temporary Fencing (Orange Construction)LF 500 3.00$ $ 1,500.00 31Special SP-9 Turbidity CurtainLF 600 20.00$ $ 12,000.00 32Special SP-10 Planting SoilCY 100 25.00$ $ 2,500.00 33ISPWC 2010.4.1.A.1 Mobilization10%LS 1 28,000.00$ $ 28,000.00 Subtotal Construction Cost= 386,125$ Change Order Contingency (12%)46,335$ Total Construction Cost = 432,460$ Design Engineering Fees80,928$ Construction Engineering - Inspection to be provided by the City (5%)21,623$ Total Project Cost=535,011$ City of McCallProject #1A - Brown Park Shoreline Stabilization - 09/15/2020Falvey's Construction Bid Estimate
NumberITEM DESCRIPTIONSupplemental DescriptionUNITESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT1DockSF 1000 50.00$ $ 50,000.00 2PierEA 12 3,500.00$ $ 42,000.00 3Log Jam Wave BarrierLS 1 3,000.00$ $ 3,000.00 410' Paver Pathwayalong the shoreline and toward BP SF 3225 23.00$ $ 74,175.00 5Beach sand - 1' deepCY 171 40.00$ $ 6,840.00 63'-5' diameter bouldersEA 65 350.00$ $ 22,750.00 7Concrete Retaining WallFace of Wall LF 215 75.00$ $ 16,125.00 8Concrete StairsSY 30 60.00$ $ 1,800.00 9South Dock StairsAssumed wood SY 5 100.00$ $ 500.00 10HandrailLF 45 80.00$ $ 3,600.00 11Decomposed granite pathSF 598 15.00$ $ 8,970.00 124' tall fenceCable Fence north of Marina LF 338 50.00$ $ 16,900.00 13Rough gradingSF 9013 0.15$ $ 1,351.95 14Finish gradingSF 9013 0.15$ $ 1,351.95 15LandscapeSF 7302 4.00$ $ 29,208.00 16Concrete Retaining/Seat WallLF 232 80.00$ $ 18,560.00 17SurveyingLS 1 10,000.00$ $ 10,000.00 18Directed Survey (Contingency Allowance)CA 1 5,000.00$ $ 5,000.00 19Mobilization10%LS131,213.19$ $ 31,213.19 Subtotal Construction Cost= 343,345.09$ Contingency (30%) 103,003.53$ Total Construction Cost= 446,348.62$ Design Engineering Fees (10%)44,634.86$ Construction Engineering & Inspection (8%)35,707.89$ Total Project Cost=526,691.37$ PROJECT BID ITEMS City of McCallProject #1B - Lake Street Shoreline and Water Improvements - 09/15/2020Conceptual Design Estimate
NumberITEM DESCRIPTIONSupplemental DescriptionUNITESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT1Demo - Asphalt pathSY4345.00$ $ 2,170.00 2Demo - TreeEA1800.00$ $ 800.00 3Remove/stockpile topsoilCY147810.00$ $ 14,780.00 418" tall concrete seat wallLF43780.00$ $ 34,960.00 5Retaining wallLF36460.00$ $ 21,840.00 68' wide paver pathSF868720.00$ $ 173,740.00 7Paver park nodesSF142020.00$ $ 28,400.00 8Rough gradingSF448070.15$ $ 6,721.05 9Fine gradingSF448070.10$ $ 4,480.70 10Landscape/IrrigationSF362444.00$ $ 144,976.00 113'-5' diameter bouldersEA35350.00$ $ 12,250.00 12Beach sand - 1' deepCY3840.00$ $ 1,520.00 13Elevated Platforms - Decking & FramingWood/Composite decking & Steel FramingSF252150.00$ $ 126,050.00 1412" Diameter Drive PileFoundation for elevated platformFT1400110.00$ $ 154,000.00 15Contingent Ground Improvement Measures (Pending results from Geotechnical investigation)Ground Improvement Measures to stabalize soil mass adjacent to platformsCA1250,000.00$ $ 250,000.00 16Pedestrian RailingFor elevated platformLF79050.00$ $ 39,500.00 17Floating DocksAt elevated platformSF71640.00$ $ 28,640.00 18Relocated shade sailsEA22,000.00$ $ 4,000.00 19PlaygroundEA1300,000.00$ $ 300,000.00 20Landscape topsoil and placedCY14783.00$ $ 4,434.00 21SurveyingLS 1 15,000.00$ $ 15,000.00 22Directed Survey (Contingency Allowance)CA 1 5,000.00$ $ 5,000.00 23Mobilization10%LS 1 135,326.18$ $ 135,326.18 Subtotal Construction Cost= 1,508,587.93$ Contingency (30%) 452,576.38$ Total Construction Cost= 1,961,164.30$ Design Engineering Fees (15%)294,174.65$ Construction Engineering & Inspection (10%)196,116.43$ Total Project Cost=2,451,455.38$ City of McCallProject #2 - Brown Park Improvements - 09/15/2020Conceptual Design EstimatePROJECT BID ITEMS
NumberITEM DESCRIPTIONSupplemental DescriptionUNITESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT1Removal of Tree (6"+)EA6800.00$ $ 4,800.00 2Removal of FenceLF1568.00$ $ 1,248.00 3Removal of AsphaltPath and RoadwaySY324911.00$ $ 35,741.44 4Removal of SidewalkSY62918.00$ $ 11,324.00 5Removal of LandscapingSY10015.00$ $ 1,500.00 6Removal of GravelSY10425.00$ $ 5,208.89 7Removal of Brick PaversSY660.00$ $ 366.67 8Removal of Concrete CurbLF1030.00$ $ 300.00 9Removal of Manhole or InletEA2500.00$ $ 1,000.00 10Removal of Roadside Sign (Salvage to McCall Public Works)Stop, Yield, Street and No Parking SignsEA5110.00$ $ 550.00 11Removal of Concrete BarrierStone and Block WallEA2800.00$ $ 1,600.00 12Abandon Existing Stormwater Pipe In-PlaceLF9530.00$ $ 2,850.00 13Remove/stockpile topsoilCY9710.00$ $ 970.00 14ExcavationCY257810.00$ $ 25,775.49 15Unsuitable Material ExcavationCY25880.00$ $ 20,620.39 16Borrow (On-Site)CY20015.00$ $ 3,000.00 17Dust Abatement WaterMG150030.00$ $ 45,000.00 18Remove and Reset HydrantEA23,500.00$ $ 7,000.00 198" Storm Drain Pipe, Class SDR 35 PVCLF4040.00$ $ 1,600.00 2012" Storm Drain Pipe, Class SDR 35 PVCLF78050.00$ $ 39,000.00 2215'' Storm Drain Pipe, Class SDR 35 PVCLF12160.00$ $ 7,260.00 2318'' Storm Drain Pipe, Class SDR 35 PVCLF217100.00$ $ 21,700.00 2424'' Storm Drain Pipe, Class SDR 35 PVCLF70160.00$ 11,200.00$ 2548" Storm Drain Catch ManholeEA95,000.00$ $ 45,000.00 26Inlet Catch Basin - Type IV (for Rolled Curb)EA103,000.00$ $ 30,000.00 27Curb Opening InletEA22500.00$ $ 11,000.00 28Bioretention PlanterSF180040.00$ $ 72,000.00 29Inlet Catch Basin - Type 18" Nyloplast ADS 2818AGEA171,600.00$ $ 27,200.00 30Vortechs Stormwater TreatmentEA230,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 31Precast Sediment Box - Size 1000 Gal.EA25,000.00$ $ 10,000.00 326" Vertical Curb ( No Gutter)LF67630.00$ $ 20,280.00 333" Rolled Curb and GutterLF176030.00$ $ 52,800.00 343" Rolled Curb and GutterLake Street Pine to Fir LF25030.00$ $ 7,500.00 3548" Concrete Valley Gutter LF3245.00$ $ 1,440.00 36Concrete Sidewalk, Thickness 5"east side of Lake St & HemlockSY101260.00$ $ 60,720.00 37Concrete Sidewalk, Thickness 5"east side of Lake St Pine to FirSY14260.00$ $ 8,520.00 3810' Paver Sidewalkwest side of Lake StSF852223.00$ $ 196,006.00 39Concrete Drive ApproachSY12140.00$ $ 1,711.11 40Concrete RepairSY11480.00$ $ 9,128.89 41Pedestrian Ramp w/ Detectable Warning Domes, Modified Type ___EA53,000.00$ $ 15,000.00 42Crushed Aggregate For Base Type IBase material, 135 PCFTN92635.00$ $ 32,426.72 43Crushed Aggregate For Base Type IBase material, 135 PCF Lake St Pine to FirTN21535.00$ $ 7,525.00 44Crushed Aggregate For Base Type IISubbase Material, 130 PCFTN167337.00$ $ 61,916.73 45Crushed Aggregate For Base Type IISubbase Material, 130 PCF Lake St Pine to FirTN7037.00$ $ 2,590.00 46Diluted Emulsified Asphalt for Tack CoatCSS-1 (0.1 gal/sy) Roadway onlyGAL286 $ 11.00 $ 3,146.61 471/2" Plant Mix Pavement (SP 3) PG 64-34Lake Street Fir to HemlockSY2861 $ 20.00 $ 57,211.11 481/2" Plant Mix Pavement (SP 3) PG 64-34Lake Street Pine to Fir SY350 $ 20.00 $ 7,000.00 PROJECT BID ITEMS City of McCallProject #3 - Lake Street and Bank Stabilization Improvments - 09/15/2020Conceptual Design Estimates
49Inlet ProtectionEA27 $ 45.00 $ 1,215.00 50Install 2-#6 and 1-#6 Ground For Light Pole ReceptacleLF8605.00$ $ 4,300.00 51Install 2-#8 and 1-#6 Ground For Street Light LF8605.00$ $ 4,300.00 52Conduit, 1 1/4" RPCCity ITLF516015.00$ $ 77,400.00 53Conduit, 2" RPCCity Electrical/Frontier and COLF86018.00$ $ 15,480.00 54Conduit, 1" RSCTree ReceptaclesLF86025.00$ $ 21,500.00 55Junction Box (Illumination)City PowerEA8975.00$ $ 7,800.00 5640" X 44" Junction Box (City IT)City ITEA61,000.00$ $ 6,000.00 57Service PedestalCity PowerEA11,200.00$ $ 1,200.00 58Traffic Control SignsSF20011.00$ $ 2,200.00 59Traffic Control Barricades Type IEA340.00$ $ 120.00 60Traffic Control Barricades Type IIIEA4200.00$ $ 800.00 61Traffic Control DrumsEA3032.50$ $ 975.00 62Portable Tubular MarkersEA6015.00$ $ 900.00 63Traffic Control MaintenanceMH10070.00$ $ 7,000.00 64Pavement Line Paint of Painted Pavement MarkingsAll Painted MarkingsSF20001.25$ $ 2,500.00 65Permanent SigningSF9030.00$ $ 2,700.00 66Steel Sign PostLB8002.70$ $ 2,160.00 67Anchor AssemblyEA20240.00$ $ 4,800.00 68Manhole, Sanitary Sewer, Adjust to GradeEA41,500.00$ $ 6,000.00 69Valve Box, Gate, Adjust to GradeWaterEA21,000.00$ $ 2,000.00 70Miscellaneous Utility, Adjust to Grade, Water MeterEA3600.00$ $ 1,800.00 71Subgrade Preparation GeotextileSY28611.75$ $ 5,005.97 73Subgrade Preparation GeotextileLake Street Pine to Fir SY3501.75$ $ 612.50 74Landscape RepairSY15080.00$ $ 12,000.00 75Irrigation SystemLS130,000.00$ $ 30,000.00 76TreesEA3800.00$ $ 2,400.00 77Light Poles (Historical Lights)EA158,000.00$ $ 120,000.00 78Light Poles (Intersection Lights)EA210,900.00$ $ 21,800.00 79Temporary FencingLF3005.00$ $ 1,500.00 80Remove and Reset Dumpster/Trash EnclosureEA11,000.00$ $ 1,000.00 81Asphalt ApronSY540.00$ $ 200.00 82Gravel RepairSY28910.00$ $ 2,893.33 83Install Permanent BollardEA81,200.00$ $ 9,600.00 84Block Retaining WallRebuild SF 200 25.00$ $ 5,000.00 85Landscape topsoil and placedCY2703.00$ $ 810.00 86Trash receptacleEA71,500.00$ $ 10,500.00 876' BenchEA171,300.00$ $ 22,100.00 88Bike rackEA61,200.00$ $ 7,200.00 89SurveyingLS 1 30,000.00$ $ 30,000.00 90Directed Survey (Contingency Allowance)CA 1 5,000.00$ $ 5,000.00 91Mobilization10% LS 1 151,050.88$ $ 151,050.88 Subtotal Construction Cost= 1,661,559.73$ Contingency (30%) 498,467.92$ Total Construction Cost= 2,160,027.65$ Design Engineering Fees (15%)324,004.15$ Construction Engineering & Inspection (10%)216,002.77$ Total Project Cost=2,700,034.56$
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
McCall, Idaho
for
Horrocks Engineers, Inc.
September 3, 2020
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
McCall, Idaho
for
Horrocks Engineers, Inc.
September 3, 2020
412 East Parkcenter Boulevard, Suite 305
Boise, Idaho 83706
208.433.8098
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
McCall, Idaho
File No. 10476-007-00
September 3, 2020
Prepared for:
Horrocks Engineers, Inc.
2775 West Navigator Drive, Suite 210
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Attention: Heidi Carter, PE
Prepared by:
GeoEngineers, Inc.
412 East Parkcenter Boulevard, Suite 305
Boise, Idaho 83706
208.433.8098
Jason J. Besendorfer, EIT
Staff Engineer
an P. DuRee, PE
Associate Engineer
JJB:BPD:mis
Disclaimer. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy
of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.
GEOENGINEERS
September 3, 2020 | Page i
File No. 10476-007-00
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 1
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................................................... 2
Field Explorations ........................................................................................................................................ 2
3.1.1. Borings ............................................................................................................................................. 2
3.1.2. Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests and Pavement Cores ............................................................... 2
3.1.3. Shoreline Probes ............................................................................................................................. 2
3.1.4. Infiltration Testing............................................................................................................................ 2
Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................................................... 3
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 3
General ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Geologic Map .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Report Review ............................................................................................................................................. 3
SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Surface Conditions...................................................................................................................................... 4
5.1.1. Project No. 1 - Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization and Project No. 2 - Brown Park
Improvements ............................................................................................................................................... 4
5.1.2. Project No. 3 - Lake Street Improvements ..................................................................................... 4
5.1.3. Project No. 4 - Lake Street Water Improvements .......................................................................... 4
Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 5
5.2.1. Soil Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 5
5.2.2. Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................................. 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 7
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Brown Park Promenade and Stabilization ................................................................................................. 8
6.2.1. Slope Stability Analysis ................................................................................................................... 8
6.2.2. Settlement ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Lake Street Pavement Section ................................................................................................................... 9
6.3.1. Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 9
6.3.2. Subgrade Soil................................................................................................................................... 9
6.3.3. Design Parameter Summary ........................................................................................................... 9
Stormwater Infiltration ............................................................................................................................. 10
Lake Street Water Improvements Dock Anchors ................................................................................... 10
Site Preparation and Earthwork .............................................................................................................. 10
6.6.1. Initial Site Preparation.................................................................................................................. 10
6.6.1. Clearing and Grubbing ................................................................................................................. 10
6.6.2. Sedimentation and Erosion Control ............................................................................................ 11
6.6.3. Permanent Slopes ........................................................................................................................ 11
6.6.4. Temporary Slopes ......................................................................................................................... 11
6.6.5. Wet Weather Construction ........................................................................................................... 12
MATERIALS ............................................................................................................................................... 13
September 3, 2020 | Page ii
File No. 10476-007-00
6.7.1. Structural Fill................................................................................................................................. 13
6.7.2. Re-use of On-site Soils ................................................................................................................. 13
6.7.3. Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria ...................................................................................... 13
6.7.4. Brown Park Construction Considerations ................................................................................... 14
LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 14
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 15
September 3, 2020 | Page iii
File No. 10476-007-00
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity and Geology Map
Figure 2. Site Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Field Explorations
Figure A-1—Key to Explorations Logs
Figures A-2 through A-9—Logs of Borings
Appendix B. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Results
Figures B-1 and B-2—DCP Test Results
Appendix C. Pavement Core Photographs
Figures C-1 and C-2—Pavement Core Photographs
Appendix D. Laboratory Test Results
Figure D-1—Sieve Analysis Results
Figure D-2—Atterberg Limits Test Results
Figure D-3—R-value Test Results
Appendix E. Slope Stability Analysis Results
Figure E-1—Existing Conditions Section B-1—Static, High-Pool
Figure E-2—Existing Conditions Section B-1—Seismic, High-Pool
Figure E-3—Existing Conditions Section B-1—Static, Low-Pool
Figure E-4—Existing Conditions Section B-1—Seismic, Low-Pool
Figure E-5—Proposed Conditions Section B-1—Static, High-Pool, 2:1 Slope
Figure E-6—Proposed Conditions Section B-1—Seismic, High-Pool, 2:1 Slope
Figure E-7—Proposed Conditions Section B-1—Static, Low-Pool, 2:1 Slope
Figure E-8—Proposed Conditions Section B-1—Seismic, Low-Pool, 2:1 Slope
Figure E-9—Proposed Conditions Section B-1—Static, High-Pool, 3:1 Slope
Figure E-10—Proposed Conditions Section B-1—Seismic, High-Pool, 3:1 Slope
Figure E-11—Proposed Conditions Section B-1—Static, Low-Pool, 3:1 Slope
Figure E-12—Proposed Conditions Section B-1—Seismic, Low-Pool, 3:1 Slope
Figure E-13—Existing Conditions Section B-2—Static, High-Pool
Figure E-14—Existing Conditions Section B-2—Seismic, High-Pool
Figure E-15—Existing Conditions Section B-2—Static, Low-Pool
Figure E-16—Existing Conditions Section B-2—Seismic, Low-Pool
Figure E-17—Proposed Conditions Section B-2—Static, High-Pool, 2:1 Slope
Figure E-18—Proposed Conditions Section B-2—Seismic, High-Pool, 2:1 Slope
Figure E-19—Proposed Conditions Section B-2—Static, Low-Pool, 2:1 Slope
Figure E-20—Proposed Conditions Section B-2—Seismic, Low-Pool, 2:1 Slope
Figure E-21—Proposed Conditions Section B-2—Static, High-Pool, 3:1 Slope
Figure E-22—Proposed Conditions Section B-2—Seismic, High-Pool, 3:1 Slope
Figure E-23—Proposed Conditions Section B-2—Static, Low-Pool, 3:1 Slope
Figure E-24—Proposed Conditions Section B-2—Seismic, Low-Pool, 3:1 Slope
Appendix F. Pavement Design Calculations
Appendix G. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
September 3, 2020 | Page 1
File No. 10476-007-00
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation to support design and
construction of four projects for the City of McCall including:
■ Project No. 1: Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
■ Project No. 2: Brown Park Improvements
■ Project No. 3: Lake Street Improvements
■ Project No. 4: Lake Street Water Improvements
Each project location is shown in Figure 1, Vicinity and Geology Map, and in Figure 2, Site Plan. Our
understanding of the project is based on phone conversations with you on June 24, 2020 and July 8, 2020
and a site plan provided by email on July 8, 2020.
Project No. 1—Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization consists of stabilizing the existing Payette Lake
shoreline along Brown Park. We understand the project will initially include grading the shoreline to a slope
of about 3H:1V (horizontal:vertical) and placing riprap. A future project will include constructing concrete
platforms. Geotechnical recommendations for these future platforms are not provided in this report.
Project No. 2—Brown Park Improvements consists of removing the existing asphalt concrete (AC) trail as
well as some restructuring of the parks existing facilities such as the playground and shade canopies. The
existing asphalt trail will be replaced with a trail constructed of pavers.
Project No. 3—Lake Street Improvements consists of repaving and restructuring Lake Street between the
existing public boat launch and Mill Road. On-street parking and a sidewalk are planned on the east side
of the street, and a walking path surfaced with pavers is planned on the west side of the street. The walking
path will connect to the walking path in Brown Park.
Project No. 4—Lake Street Water Improvements consists of adding additional docks in Payette Lake
between the existing public boat launch and Brown Park. The approximate location of proposed
improvements related to each project is shown in Figure 2.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services for this geotechnical evaluation was presented in our proposal dated July 15, 2020.
The objective of our services was to perform subsurface explorations to provide you with geotechnical
engineering recommendations to support design and construction of the projects. Our scope of services
was completed in general accordance with our proposal and included the following general items:
■ Literature review;
■ Drilling a total of eight borings, installing one piezometer, completing an infiltration test and probing
along the bank of Brown Park.
■ Laboratory testing;
September 3, 2020 | Page 2
File No. 10476-007-00
■ Engineering analysis; and
■ Preparation of this report.
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING
Field Explorations
3.1.1. Borings
We explored subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the each of the four sites by drilling eight (8)
borings between July 22 to 24, 2020. We installed a 2-inch standpipe piezometer in boring B-8 (MW) to
allow future monitoring of groundwater levels. A summary of the boring locations, elevations and depths at
each project sites are presented in Table 1. The approximate exploration locations are shown in Figure 2.
TABLE 1. EXPLORATION SUMMARY
Project
Boring
ID
Approximate Location
ID State Plane, West, NAD83 (feet) 1 Approx. Surface
Elevation,
NAVD88 (feet) 2
Depth
(feet) Northing Easting
Project No. 1—Shoreline
Promenade and Stabilization
B-1 1184575 2534802 4995 25
B-2 1184776 2534843 4994 25
Project No. 2—Brown Park
Improvements B-3 1184663 2534920 4999 15
Project No. 3—Lake Street
Improvements
B-4 1183816 2534901 4997 7.5
B-5 1184186 2534946 5004 5
B-8 (MW) 1183929 2534958 4999 17.5
Project No. 4—Lake Street
Water Improvements
B-6 1183909 2534892 4998 25
B-7 1184280 2534907 4995 23
Notes:
1 Boring location estimated using hand-held GPS and are considered approximate.
2 Elevations were estimated based on approximate location and topographic map and are considered approximate.
3.1.2. Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests and Pavement Cores
We completed dynamic cone penetration tests (DCPT) of the subgrade of Lake Street in borings B-4 and
B-5. A summary of DCPT test procedures and test results are presented in Appendix B. We also collected
pavement cores at the locations of borings B-4 and B-5 and photographs of the pavement cores are
included in Figures C-1 and C-2 in Appendix C.
3.1.3. Shoreline Probes
We used a 5/8-inch-diameter steel probe rod to evaluate the stiffness of the shoreline sediment below the
water level of the lake. The probe locations and probe depths are show in Figure 2.
3.1.4. Infiltration Testing
We completed one borehole infiltration test at the location of IT-1 shown on the site plan. The test was
completed in accordance with the City of Boise standards because McCall does not have a standard
September 3, 2020 | Page 3
File No. 10476-007-00
infiltration test procedure. The test consisted of installing a 4-inch-diameter PVC pipe at a depth of about
3.3 feet below existing site grades, introducing water into the borehole, and monitoring water levels at
various time increments. Results of our tests indicated that the groundwater infiltration rate within the
borehole was negligible.
The hole for the PVC pipe was drilled using a truck-mounted CME-75 hollow stem auger drill rig. After
reaching the target depth, a 4-inch PCV pipe was seated about 4 inches into the soil at the bottom of the
borehole using the weight of the drill rig. A bentonite seal was placed between the PVC pipe and the
borehole. Water was added inside of the 4-inch PVC pipe to produce about 2 feet of head at least 24 hours
before beginning the test. After the initial soaking period, we added water to return the head to 2 feet and
measured the loss of head at 1, 2, and 18 hours.
Laboratory Testing
Soil samples were obtained during the exploration program and taken to GeoEngineers’ laboratory for
further evaluation. Selected samples were tested for the determination of moisture content, percent
passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve, Atterberg Limits, gradation analysis, and Idaho R-value. Detailed
descriptions of our laboratory testing program along with the laboratory test results are pre sented in
Appendix D, Laboratory Test Results.
LITERATURE REVIEW
General
We completed a literature review for this site as part of our evaluation. Our study included reviewing Idaho
Geological Survey geologic maps and geotechnical reports completed for nearby projects. Additionally,
based on discussions with Horrocks, we understand Brown Park was previously an old lumber facility that
has been filled and constructed into a city park.
Geologic Map
Based on the Surficial Geologic Map of the McCall Quadrangle, Valley and Adams Counties, Idaho, scale
1:24,000 from the Idaho Geological Survey, the site is mapped as late Pleistocene age Outwash of younger
Pinedale Quaternary Alluvium Deposits (Qpyo). The surface of this unit is descried as “pebbly and bouldery
sand,” and below a depth of 1 meter is described as, “loose to compact till composed of “gravely coarse
sand with a silty fine sand matrix; pebble- to boulder-sized gravel.” The materials encountered in our borings
varied somewhat with mapped geology. We did not encounter significant alluvial gravel or bolder deposits.
Glacial till was not observed in our borings.
Report Review
As part of our evaluation, we reviewed the report you provided titled, “Groundwater infiltration Evaluation,
Downtown McCall Core Feasibility, McCall, Idaho,” by Strata dated December 9, 2016. This evaluation
included three borings about ¼ mile southwest of these projects. The borings extended to depths in the
range of about 11.5 to 21.5 feet below existing site grades. Subsurface conditions consisted of a
combination of very soft to hard silt and clay, and loose to medium dense sand with variable silt and clay
content. Groundwater was encountered in one of the three borings, initially at a depth of about 13.9 feet,
but the groundwater immediately rose to a depth of about 5 feet below existing site grades.
September 3, 2020 | Page 4
File No. 10476-007-00
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
5.1.1. Project No. 1 - Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization and Project No. 2 - Brown Park Improvements
The Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization site and the Brown Park Improvements sites are located in
Brown Park which is bordered by Payette Lake to the west and a combination of apartments and
single-family residences to the east. Brown park is on the order of about 170 feet wide (east to west) and
about 470 feet long (north to south). An approximately 8-foot-wide asphalt paved pedestrian trail enters
the park from the south and loops around the border of the park. A playground and a restroom are located
along in the east side of the park. An approximately 5-foot-tall mound is located near the center of the park
and the ground surface in the park tends to slope gently away from the mound towards Payette Lake to the
west and towards the playground and restroom to the east. Except for the pedestrian trail and the
playground, the ground surface at the park is generally planted with sod. Medium to large deciduous trees
are also scattered throughout the park.
The Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization site is located at the west side of Brown Park along the bank
of Payette Lake. Based on underwater topography, the bank tends to slope moderately to the west, away
from Brown Park. Rounded boulders, approximately 2 to 4 feet in diameter, are located near the top of the
slope along the bank. The existing paved asphalt trail approximately parallels the bank in this area and
erosion appears to have eroded the area between the boulders and the trail. A dock is located north of the
pedestrian trail near the north side of the park.
The Brown Park Improvements site is located generally east of the Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
site and occupies the majority of Brown Park described previously.
5.1.2. Project No. 3 - Lake Street Improvements
The Lake Street Improvements site consists of the portion of East Lake Street between the public boat
launch (at the west end of Fir Street) and Mill Road, and also the asphalt paved pedestrian access trail
between Lake Street and Brown Park. The west shoulder of Lake Street consists of an approximately
6-foot-wide asphalt paved pedestrian trail that extends from the public boat launch to the south for a
distance of about 500 feet. The trail then forks from Lake Street and leads to Brown Park approximately
following the bank of Payette Lake. In the project area, Lake Street approximately parallels the bank of
Payette Lake for about 700 feet before turning to the east. Lake Street is relatively level from the boat
launch for about 400 feet, and then slopes gently to moderately upward to Mill Road. The east shoulder of
Lake Street is paved and is used for on-street parking. Medium to large deciduous trees are located along
the east border of Lake Street. A moderate to steep slope is located between the pedestrian trail that leads
to Brown Park and Lake Street, as Lake Street climbs to the north and east and a rail fence is located
approximately along the crest of the slope. The west gravel shoulder in this area is also used for parking.
5.1.3. Project No. 4 - Lake Street Water Improvements
The Lake Street Water Improvements site is located along the shoreline of Payette Lake, west of the Lake
Street improvements site. The site extends from about 300 to 700 feet north of the public boat launch
located to the south. In this area, there tends to be a steep slope between the water level in Payette Lake
and the asphalt paved pedestrian trail described in the Lake Street Improvements site description. Medium
September 3, 2020 | Page 5
File No. 10476-007-00
to large deciduous trees border the lake along most of the northern approximate half of the site.
Approximately 2- to 4-foot rounded boulders are also located along portions of the bank in this area.
Subsurface Conditions
5.2.1. Soil Conditions
The subsurface soil units encountered in the borings were variable between each of the four project sites.
A summary of subsurface conditions we encountered in our borings at each site is described below.
5.2.1.1. Project No. 1 - Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
Our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the proposed Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
site are based on soil encountered during drilling of borings B-1 and B-2. Each soil unit we encountered in
the boring is summarized below.
Topsoil. We encountered about 3 to 4 inches of topsoil at the ground surface in borings B-1 and B-2.
Upper Fill. We encountered approximately 5½ to 10½ feet of loose to medium dense sand with silt (SP-SM)
and silty sand (SM) which we classify as fill based on topography and the presence of angular quarry spalls
in portions of the fill.
Organic Fill Soils. Soft to very soft organic matter mixed with varying amounts of sand and gravel to depths
in the range of about 10½ to 12 feet. The organic matter consisted of partially decomposed wood.
Laboratory testing on two samples of the organic soil indicated moisture contents of 94 and 147 percent,
indicating these soils are highly compressible. These soils are anticipated to be remnant fill from the
demolished lumber mill. Approximately 2 to 2½ feet of very soft to soft sandy silt and clay (ML, CL) was
observed below the organics.
Lower Fill. In boring B-2, we encountered a piece of metal in the 13½ to 15-foot sample, so we classify the
sand as fill. We encountered loose to medium dense sand (SP) to a depth of 22 feet in boring B-1. We
encountered very loose sand with silt (SP-SM) to a depth of 22 feet in boring B-2. Laboratory testing on two
samples of this sand measured fines contents of 3 and 6 percent and moisture contents of 21 and
24 percent.
Native Soils. Native soils were encountered at a depth of 22 feet in both boring B-1 and B-2. Native soils
in boring B-1 consisted of very loose silty sand with occasional clay lenses. Native soils in boring B-2
consisted of medium stiff lean clay with sand and occasional gravel (CL).
5.2.1.2. Project No. 2 - Brown Park Improvements
Our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the Brown Park Improvements site is based on soil
encountered during drilling of boring B-3. The following surfacing and soil units were encountered in boring
B-3.
Asphalt Pavement. We observed the pedestrian trail pavement section to consist of about 3 ½ inches of
hot mix asphalt (HMA). We did not observe any crushed rock base course below the asphalt pavement.
Fill. We encountered loose to medium dense sand and gravel fill (SP-SM, GP-GM, SM) to a depth of about
12 feet. Within the fill, from about 5½ to 12 feet, we encountered partially decomposed wood and bark
mixed with sand.
September 3, 2020 | Page 6
File No. 10476-007-00
Native Soils. We encountered native soils at a depth of 12 feet in Boring B-3. The native soils consisted of
medium dense silty sand (SM) that extended to the maximum depth explored of 15 feet.
5.2.1.3. Project No. 3 - Lake Street Improvements
Our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the Lake Improvements site is based on soil
encountered during drilling of borings B-4, B-5 and B-8. The following surfacing and soil units were
encountered in borings B-4, B-5, and B-8.
Pavement. We encountered about 4 to 4½ inches of HMA pavement in borings B-4 and B-5 overlying about
2 to 3 inches of crushed aggregate base course.
Topsoil. At the ground surface in boring B-8, we encountered about 5 inches of topsoil.
Fill. We encountered fill extending to a depth of about 2½ to 4½ feet. The fill consisted of very loose to
medium dense sand with variable silt content (SM, SW-SM, and SP-SM). Laboratory testing indicates a fines
content in the range of about 7 to 31 percent and a moisture content in the range of about 6 to 15 percent.
Native Soils. We encountered native soils below the fill consisting of soft to stiff silt and clay with variable
sand content (ML and CL). The silt and clay soils extended to the depths explored in each of the borings.
Laboratory testing within the fine-grained soils measured a fines content of 83 percent in one sample, and
moisture contents ranging from 26 to 32 percent in two samples.
5.2.1.4. Project No. 4 - Lake Street Water Improvements
Our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the Lake Street Water Improvements site is based on
soil encountered during drilling of borings B-6 and B-7. A summary of the soil units encountered in these
borings are presented below.
Fill. We encountered about 6 feet of fill in boring B-6 consisting of very loose to medium dense sand with
variable silt content (SM, SP-SM, and SW-SM). We encountered about 6 inches of loose sand fill at the
ground surface in boring B-7. Laboratory testing on the sand measured a fines content of 9 percent on two
samples and moisture contents ranging from 5 to 24 percent on two samples.
Native Silt. Below the sand in both of the borings, we encountered medium stiff to very stiff silt (ML, MH)
with varying amounts of sand to depths of 16½ and 20½ feet. Laboratory testing on the silt measured a
fines content of 95 percent on one sample, plasticity indexes that were non-plastic to 30 on three samples,
and moisture contents ranging from 29 to 41 percent.
Native Sand. We encountered a native sand deposit at a depth of 20 ½ feet and 16 ½ feet in borings B-6
and B-7, respectively. The native sand deposit consists of medium dense silty sand (SM). This soil unit
extended to the depth explored of 25 and 23 feet, respectively.
5.2.2. Groundwater Conditions
We measured groundwater depth during drilling in of the borings. A summary of the groundwater levels
encountered during drilling is presented in Table 2. We observed in several of the borings that freewater
was not present in the borehole because of low permeability layers such as the silts and clays until we
reached higher permeability sand, after which the groundwater rose. The depth to groundwater at each of
September 3, 2020 | Page 7
File No. 10476-007-00
the sites is like influenced by Payette Lake and likely varies seasonally, and from year to year, depending
on water levels in the lake.
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS
Boring ID Date Groundwater Depth (feet) Approximate Groundwater Elevation (feet)
B-1 7/23/2020 4.5 4990.5
B-2 7/24/2020 5.7 4988.3
B-3 7/23/2020 7.2 4991.8
B-4 7/23/2020 5.4 4991.6
B-5 7/23/2020 Not Encountered > 5’ Below 4999
B-6 7/23/2020 4.9 4993.1
B-7 7/22/2020 4 4991
B-8 (MW) 1 7/22/2020 TBD TBD
Note:
1 Groundwater levels in boring B-8 were not stabilized in the borehole or in the piezometer from drilling activities before we left the
site. The piezometer should be measured after groundwater levels have stabilized to determine groundwater depth and elevation.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Based on the results of our site exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis, it is our opinion
that the proposed improvements may be constructed as currently planned, with respect to geotechnical
conditions. A summary of our conclusions and recommendations is provided below. The summary is
presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete
recommendations presented in this report.
■ The slope stability analysis results indicate adequate slope stability factor of safety for the static
condition, assuming a minimum required factor of safety of 1.25 for slopes not supporting structures.
The results indicate the proposed rip-rap slope stabilization increases the static factor of safety by
about 0.13 to 0.15 to a minimum factor of safety of approximately 1.42 (static). Additional slope
stabilization improvements may be required if a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 (static) and 1.1
(seismic) is required.
■ Soft organic soils were encountered at the Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization site and the Brown
Park site. The site soils are compressible, and consideration should be made to design the structures
to accommodate the anticipated settlement which could result from constructing on very loose/soft
soils. Providing geotechnical recommendations for structures is not included in our current scope of
services. Settlement should be anticipated if site grades are raised for these projects.
■ Site soils contain appreciable amount of fines (percent passing the No. 200 sieve), are highly moisture
sensitive and can become significantly disturbed from earthwork conducted during or soon after
periods of wet weather, or when the moisture content of the soil is more than a few percentage points
above optimum. Construction planning and practices should consider wet weather and disturbance to
native soils if the project is constructed during the wet season (typically November to May).
September 3, 2020 | Page 8
File No. 10476-007-00
■ Shallow groundwater is present, and dewatering could be required if excavations extend more than
about 3 to 4 feet below existing site grades. Shallow groundwater should also be considered for
stormwater facility design.
■ Measured an infiltration rate of less than 0.01 inches per hour in a borehole infiltration test completed
near boring B-8 (MW) on the City’s property along Lake Street. The test indicates infiltration for
stormwater design is likely not practical at that location.
The following sections present specific geotechnical engineering recommendations for designing and
constructing the project.
Brown Park Promenade and Stabilization
6.2.1. Slope Stability Analysis
We completed slope stability analysis at the Brown Park Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization site using
the computer program Slope/W (Geo-Slope International). The software uses limit-equilibrium stability
analysis, and we used the Spencer method of analysis available within the software. Seismic conditions
were modeled using a pseudo-static horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.124g which represents half of the
peak ground acceleration (PGA) for a 2,500-year design level earthquake. The soil parameters used in our
analysis are shown on the stability results presented in Appendix E, Slope Stability Analysis Results. We
included a 250 pounds per square foot (psf) live load surcharge for the static case applied to the ground
surface behind the riprap. A live load surcharge was not included for the seismic condition. We modeled
groundwater at a high-pool elevation of 4,992.6 feet and a low pool elevation of 4,987.0 feet. We modeled
both the existing conditions and the proposed conditions with 30 inches of riprap placed on a 2:1 and a
3:1 slope.
We evaluated two cross sections corresponding to the locations of borings B-1 and B-2. Underwater
topography at the locations of these borings was pulled from the topographic survey data provided by you,
and the slope was projected beyond the topographic survey.
We recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1.25 (static) for the shoreline slopes. A minimum factor of
safety of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 (seismic) is recommended for slopes supporting structures.
The global stability results are summarized in Table 3 below. Graphical images of the stability analyses are
presented in Figures E-1 through E-16 in Appendix E. The results indicate adequate slope stability factor of
safety for the static condition, assuming the slopes will not be supporting structures. The results indicate
the proposed rip-rap slope stabilization increases the static factor of safety has a very small change from
the existing slope condition for the 2:1 riprap slope. The factor of safety increased by about 0.13 to 0.34
for the proposed 3:1 riprap slope. The results indicate the slopes will likely not be stable during a design-
level seismic event. Additional slope stabilization improvements may be required if a minimum factor of
safety of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 (seismic) is required.
September 3, 2020 | Page 9
File No. 10476-007-00
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
Boring
Analysis
Case
Calculated Factor of Safety
Existing Conditions Proposed 2:1 Slope Proposed 3:1 Slope
High-Pool Low-Pool High-Pool Low-Pool High-Pool Low-Pool
B-1 Static 1.49 1.28 1.51 1.27 1.69 1.48
B-1 Seismic 0.88 0.85 0.86 0.84 0.90 0.88
B-2 Static 1.62 1.29 1.68 1.30 1.96 1.56
B-2 Seismic 1.07 0.95 0.95 0.86 1.07 0.95
6.2.2. Settlement
The very soft to soft organic soils below Brown Park are anticipated to be highly compressible. We
understand site grading activities will be minor and are anticipated to closely match existing elevations.
Therefore, we did not complete settlement analysis of proposed fill embankments. We can complete
settlement analysis for anticipated fill or structures if requested.
6.2.3. Seismic Hazards
An evaluation of potential seismic hazards including soil liquefaction, lateral spreading and fault rupture
was not included in our current scope of services. We can evaluate seismic hazards at the site if required.
Lake Street Pavement Section
6.3.1. Summary
Traffic loading data was not provided to us. However, we understand a typical pavement section used by
the City on other projects consists of 4 inches of ½-inch plant mix asphalt pavement, 4 inches of Type I
crushed aggregate base, 12 inches of Type II crushed aggregate base and a geotextile overlying subgrade.
Given this pavement section, the R-value from boring B-5, and the input parameters described below, we
back calculated the 20-year design life ESALs to be 66,700 for this pavement section. We anticipate this
pavement section will be suitable; however, a thicker pavement section is recommended if higher traffic
loads than 66,700 ESALs are anticipated for this street. Our pavement design calculations are included in
Appendix F.
6.3.2. Subgrade Soil
Subgrade soil conditions encountered along Lake Street are described in Section 5.2.1.3 Subsurface
Conditions of this report. One laboratory R-value tests were conducted on bulk samples from boring B-5.
The laboratory-determined R-value for this samples was 20. The measured expansion pressures were less
than 0.30 pounds per square inch (psi). This R-value was used for evaluation and design of flexible
pavements on Lake Street.
6.3.3. Design Parameter Summary
A summary of the design input parameters for flexible pavement evaluation using the Gravel Equivalency
method is provided in Table 4 below.
September 3, 2020 | Page 10
File No. 10476-007-00
TABLE 4. FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS
Design Parameter Design Value Notes
HMA Thickness 4 inches Provided by the City
Base Course Thickness 4 inches Provided by the City
Subbase 12 inches Provided by the City
R-value 20 Laboratory test from boring B-5
TI 6.5 Back calculated
ESALs 66,700 Calculated as TI = 9.0(ESALs/106)0.119
Climate Factor 1.15
Aggregate Base R-value 80
Subbase R-value 60
Substitution
Ratios
New HMA
Aggregate Base
Subbase
2.2
1.0
0.85
Stormwater Infiltration
We completed a borehole infiltration test near boring B-8 (MW) on the City’s property adjacent to Lake
Street as described in Section 3.1.4 of this report. The subsurface soil conditions consist of silty fine sand
over lean clay. We measured a rate of less than 0.01 inches per hour at a depth of 3.3 feet after 18 hours
of soaking. The infiltration test indicates that stormwater infiltration near boring B-8 (MW) is not practical.
Lake Street Water Improvements Dock Anchors
We anticipate the proposed docks will be anchored using either gravity anchors or ground anchors. Anchors
could include concrete gravity anchors, driven anchors such as manta ray anchors, or helical piers. If ground
anchors are used, we recommend they be selected and designed by the Contractor to resist the specified
design loads based on the boring logs presented in this report. The ground anchors should be tested to
confirm they will provide the required pull-out resistance.
Site Preparation and Earthwork
6.6.1. Initial Site Preparation
We anticipate initial site preparation and earthwork operations will include clearing of surface vegetation
and existing improvements, as necessary in Brown Park and on East Lake Street. We anticipate the fill and
native soils can be excavated with conventional excavation equipment, such as excavators, dozers or
scrapers.
6.6.1. Clearing and Grubbing
The work area should be cleared of asphalt, trees, shrubs and associated stumps and root wads, sod,
organic-rich soil, and other deleterious material. Based on the explorations, we anticipate that stripping
depths will typically be less than about 1 foot. Organic rich soil, loose soil or debris should be cleaned and
backfilled with compacted structural fill.
September 3, 2020 | Page 11
File No. 10476-007-00
6.6.2. Sedimentation and Erosion Control
In our opinion, the erosion potential of the undisturbed on-site soils is low to moderate as most of the
adjacent areas are relatively flat and/or vegetated.
The amount of erosion and related potential impacts are in part a function of the time of year construction
occurs. Wet weather construction will increase the erosion potential. We expect that exposed soils will have
moderate erosion potential during wet weather. It will, therefore, be necessary to put in place effective
erosion and sedimentation controls during and after construction.
Effective erosion and sedimentation control may include interceptor swales and silt fences to prevent water
from flowing off site. If the runoff is silty, collected water should be passed through a temporary de -silting
facility prior to discharging the water. Erosion risk can also be reduced by completing initial clearing and
grading activities during the drier months and limiting the disturbance of the existing ground surface and
vegetation where possible. Material stockpiles should be covered during wet weather to prevent erosion
and soil loss. All areas disturbed during construction should be seeded and planted as soon as practical to
reduce the potential for erosion. Erosion and sedimentation control measures should be installed and
maintained in accordance with applicable regulatory standards.
6.6.3. Permanent Slopes
We recommend permanent slopes be inclined 2H:1V (horizontal:vertical) or flatter when above high-pool
elevation and 3:1 or flatter when below high-pool elevation. All slopes should be protected from erosion
using appropriate BMPs.
6.6.4. Temporary Slopes
For planning purposes during design, temporary unsupported cut slopes above groundwater and more than
4 feet high may be inclined at 1.5H:1V (horizontal to vertical) maximum steepness. Flatter slopes will likely
be required when excavating below groundwater levels. Actual design of the temporary cut slopes will be
determined by the Contractor during construction based on the observed soil conditions. For open cuts at
the site, we recommend that:
■ No traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or building supplies be allowed at the top of the cut
slopes within a distance of at least 5 feet from the top of the cut;
■ The cut slopes should be planned such that they do not encroach on a 1H:1V influence line projec ted
down from the edges of nearby or planned foundation elements;
■ Exposed soil along the slope be protected from surface erosion by using waterproof tarps or plastic
sheeting;
■ Construction activities be scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is reduced
to the extent practicable;
■ Erosion control measures be implemented as appropriate such that runoff from the site is reduced to
the extent practicable;
■ Surface water be diverted away from the slope; and
■ The general condition of the slopes be observed periodically by the geotechnical engineer to confirm
adequate stability.
September 3, 2020 | Page 12
File No. 10476-007-00
Water that enters the excavation must be collected and routed away from prepared subgrade areas. Some
sloughing and raveling of the cut slopes should be expected. Temporary covering, such as heavy plastic
sheeting with appropriate ballast, should be used to protect these slopes during periods of wet weather.
Surface water runoff from above cut slopes should be prevented from flowing over the slope face by using
berms, drainage ditches, swales or other appropriate methods.
If temporary cut slopes experience excessive sloughing or raveling during construction, it may become
necessary to modify the cut slopes to maintain safe working conditions and protect adjacent facilities or
structures. Slopes experiencing excessive sloughing or raveling should be flattened or regraded to add
intermediate slope benches. Additional dewatering should be provided if the poor slope performance is
related to groundwater seepage.
6.6.5. Wet Weather Construction
The fine-grained soils at the site are highly susceptible to moisture. Wet weather construction practices will
be necessary if work is performed during periods of wet weather. If site grading will occur during wet
weather conditions, it will be necessary to use track-mounted equipment, load removed material into trucks
supported on existing gravel surfacing, use gravel working pads, and employ other methods to reduce
ground disturbance. The contractor should be responsible to protect the subgrade during construction.
The wet weather season generally begins in November and continues through May; however, periods of
wet weather may occur during any month of the year. If wet weather earthwork is unavoidable, we
recommend that the following steps be taken should the near-surface soil conditions begin to deteriorate:
■ The ground surface in and around the work area should be sloped so that surface water is directed
away from excavations and graded so that areas of ponded water do not develop. Measures should be
taken by the contractor to prevent surface water from collecting in excavations and trenches. Measures
also should be implemented to remove surface water from the work area.
■ Earthwork activities should not take place during periods of heavy precipitation or during freezing
conditions.
■ Slopes with exposed soil should be covered with plastic sheeting.
■ The contractor should take necessary measures to prevent on-site soil and soil to be used as fill from
becoming wet or unstable. These measures may include the use of plastic sheeting, sumps with pumps,
and grading. The site soil should not be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Sealing the surficial
soil by rolling with a smooth-drum roller before periods of precipitation should reduce the extent to
which the soil becomes wet or unstable.
■ Fill placement earthwork activities should not occur on frozen soil.
■ Construction traffic should be restricted to specific areas of the site, preferably areas that are surfaced
with working pad materials not susceptible to disturbance.
■ Construction activities should be scheduled so that the length of time that soil is exposed to moisture
during wet weather is reduced to the extent practical.
September 3, 2020 | Page 13
File No. 10476-007-00
MATERIALS
6.7.1. Structural Fill
Fill placed behind retaining structures, and placed below pavements and sidewalks should be specified as
structural fill as described below:
■ Structural fill used below hardscape and pavement areas should consist of 6-inch-minus aggregate
meeting the requirements of Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWC) Section 801.
■ Drainage material should consist of drain rock meeting the requirements of ISPWC Section 801.
■ Subbase material should consist of 2-inch (Type II) crushed aggregate meeting the requirements of
ISPWC Section 802.
■ Structural fill placed as crushed surfacing base course below pavements and sidewalks should meet
the requirements of ¾-inch (Type 1) Crushed Aggregate meeting the requirements of ISPWC
Section 802.
6.7.2. Re-use of On-site Soils
On-site soil that is free from organic matter or oversized debris (nominal dimension of 4 inches or larger)
may be considered for reuse as structural fill. The suitability of on-site soil for use as structural fill depends
on soil gradation and moisture content at the time of compaction. As the fines content in soil increases,
the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction
becomes more difficult to achieve. In our opinion, the existing granular fill soils are likely suitable for re-use
as structural fill. Soils that classify as organic, ML, MH, CL, or CH are not suitable for reuse as structural fill.
For use as structural fill, existing fill must be properly moisture-conditioned for compaction to within about
2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content for compaction.
An experienced geotechnical engineer from our office should determine the suitability of on -site soil
encountered during earthwork activities for reuse as structural fill.
6.7.3. Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria
Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm, non-yielding condition. Structural fill should be
placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness when using heavy compaction equipment of
6 inches in thickness when using hand-operated equipment. Each lift should be conditioned to the proper
moisture content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts. Structural fill
should be compacted to the following criteria:
■ Structural fill placed in within the upper 2 feet of pavement and sidewalk areas (including utility trench
backfill) should be compacted to at least 95 percent MDD (ASTM D 1557).
■ Structural fill placed in non-structural or below a depth of 2 feet in paved areas should be compacted
to at least 90 percent MDD (ASTM D 1557).
We recommend that GeoEngineers be present to evaluate subgrade soil conditions in building and
pavement areas, and during placement of structural fill. We will evaluate the adequacy of the subgrade
soils and identify areas needing further work, perform in-place moisture-density tests in the fill to verify
compliance with the compaction specifications, and advise on any modifications to the procedures that
may be appropriate for the site conditions.
September 3, 2020 | Page 14
File No. 10476-007-00
6.7.4. Brown Park Construction Considerations
As discussed in the introduction, a sawmill was previously located at the location of Brown Park. Within our
boring at Brown Park, we encountered a combination of very loose sand, soft to very soft silt and clay, and
soil layers composed largely of partially decomposed wood. Additional loads on the soils will result in
surface settlement. Also, additional surface settlement should be anticipated as the organic soils continue
to decompose or from construction vibrations. This settlement could adversely affect the proposed pathway
and park structures located on the park. We encountered limited debris within our borings; however,
additional debris fill could be encountered in other areas of the site not explored. If sawdust/organic rich
soil is encountered at the ground surface, we recommend it be removed and replaced with granular fill to
reduce the potential for future settlement. A moderate to high-strength geotextile, such as Mirafi rs380i
could be considered where very soft soils are encountered at subgrade elevations.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for Horrocks Engineers, Inc. for the four City of McCall projects described in
this report. Horrocks Engineers, Inc. may distribute copies of this report to the City of McCall (City) and the
City’s authorized agents and regulatory agencies as may be required for the project.
Our services were provided to assist in the design of slope stabilization features. Our recommendations are
intended to improve the overall stability of the site and to reduce the potential for future property damage
related to earth movements, drainage or erosion. Qualified engineering and construction practices can help
mitigate the risks inherent in construction on slopes, although those risks cannot be eliminated completely.
Favorable performance of structures in the near term is useful information for anticipating future
performance, but it cannot predict or imply a certainty of long-term performance, especially under
conditions of adverse weather or seismic activity.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with
generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was
prepared. The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report are based on our
professional knowledge, judgment and experience. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied,
should be understood.
Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if
provided, and any attachments should be considered a copy of the original document. The original
document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.
Please refer to Appendix G, Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use, for additional information pertaining
to use of this report.
September 3, 2020 | Page 15
File No. 10476-007-00
REFERENCES
ATC Hazards by Location online tool. https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/. Accessed August 4, 2020.
Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, 2015.
IBC, 2018. International Building Code. International Code Council.
Breckenridge, R.M., and Othberg, K.L., 2005. Surficial Geologic Map of the McCall Quadrangle, Valley and
Adams Counties, Idaho. Idaho Geological Survey Digital Web Map DWM-35. Scale 1:24,000.
FIGURES
P:\10\10476007\GIS\MXD\1047600700_F01_VMGeology.mxd Date Exported: 08/06/20Payette Lake
Divot Wooley Ave
Fairway Dr
E Lake St Mill Rd Spruce St Eagle Roosevelt Ave Park St Mccall Ave NReady Ln
Hemlock St Louisa Ave Fir St
Spruce Ave Mccall Rd Ponderosa Ave Dawson Ave Pine St
Suitor Ln Railroad Ave Aspen Aly 4th St Wooley Way Alpine St Bridle Path Way Lawrence Dr Moore St Colorado St Fir St
Eagle E Lake St Davis Ave µ
Vicinity and Geology Map
Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationMcCall, Idaho
Figure 1
Qas
Qpyo
Qtpor
Legend
Approxiamte Project Area
^_Site
Data Source: ESRI Data Online, ESRI Clarity.
Site
Geologic Map Units
Qas: Alluvium, Fine grained (Holocene)
Qpyo: Outwash of younger Pinedale (late Pleistocene)
Qtpor: Recessional, ice contact and stagnation deposits of
older Pinedale (late Pleistocene)
Data Source: Surficial Geologic Map of the McCall Quadrangle,Valley and Adams Counties, Idaho, http://www.idahogeology.org.
100 0 100
Feet
Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intendedto assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and contentof electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc.and will serve as the official record of this communication.
Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane Idaho West FIPS 1103 Feet
Legend
@Ñ<Boring Number and Approximate Location
"""Ñ Infiltration Test Number and Approximate Location
#0Piezometer Number and Approximate Location
!Probe Number, (Probe Depth) and Approximate Location
Project Area
1: Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
2: Brown Park Improvements
3: Lake Street Improvements
4: Lake Street Water Improvements
P:\10\10476007\GIS\MXD\1047600700_F02_SP.mxd Date Exported: 08/06/20 by ccabrera #0"""Ñ
@Ñ<
@Ñ<
@Ñ<
@Ñ<
@Ñ<
@Ñ<
@Ñ<
!
!!!!
!!!
Mill Rd
E Lake St
Project AreaNumber 4
Project AreaNumber 2
ProjectAreaNumber 1
Project AreaNumber 3
B-8 (MW)
IT-1
B-4 B-6 B-5
B-1 B-2
B-3
B-7
P-1 (12 in)
P-2 (6 in)
P-3(0 in)
P-4 (0 in)
P-5 (0in)
P-6 (36+ in)P-7 (36+ in)
P-8 (36+ in)
Data Source: µSite Plan
Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationMcCall, Idaho
Figure 2
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Field Explorations
September 3, 2020 | Page A-1
File No. 10476-007-00
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Field Explorations
Soil and groundwater conditions at each of the four sites were explored on July 22 to 24, 2020, by drilling
eight borings (B-1 through B-8) to depths in the range of 5 to 25 feet. The borings were advanced using a
truck-mounted, CME-75 hollow-stem auger drill rig owned and operated by GeoEngineers. The approximate
locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2.
The borings were continuously monitored by a geologist from our firm who examined and classified the soil,
obtained representative soil samples and maintained a detailed log of the explorations. Soil encountered
in the explorations was classified in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 2488, the Standard
Practice for Classification of Soils, Visual-Manual Procedure, which is summarized in Figure A-1, Key to
Exploration Logs. Logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-2 through A-9. The logs are based on
interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the depth at which subsurface materials or their
characteristics change, although these changes might actually be gradual.
The explorations locations were established by measuring from existing site features and using hand-held
GPS units. The elevations shown on the boring logs were estimated from survey data you provided. The
borings were not surveyed, and the accuracy of the boring locations should be considered approximate.
Samples of soil encountered in the borings were obtained at approximate 2½- to 5-foot-depth intervals
using either a 2-inch, outside-diameter, standard split-spoon sampler, or a 2.4-inch, inside-diameter,
California-type split barrel sampler. The samplers were driven into the soil using a 140-pound hammer,
falling 30 inches on each blow. The number of blows required to drive the samplers each of three, 6-inch
increments of penetration were recorded in the field. The sum of the blow counts for the last two,
6-inch increments of penetration for the California-style sampler were converted to approximate
ASTM D 1586-08A Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values. The conversion of California sampler blow
counts to approximate SPT N-values was made using the Lacroix-Horn Equation (ASTM SPT-523, 1973).
The approximate N-values are shown in the “Remarks” section of the boring logs.
At the location of push probes P-1 to P-5, we waded approximately to waste deep water and used body
weight to push a 5/8-inch diameter extendable push probe into the submerged soils. Push probes P-6 to
P-8 were completed from the edge of the dock near the north side of Brown Park.
Measured groundwater level in exploration,
well, or piezometer
Measured free product in well or piezometer
Distinct contact between soil strata
Approximate contact between soil strata
Contact between geologic units
SYMBOLS TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
GW
GP
SW
SP
SM
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS AND
CLAYS
NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications
MORE THAN 50%
RETAINED ON
NO. 200 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%
PASSING
NO. 200 SIEVE
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
SC
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT
OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT
OF FINES)
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER
GM
GC
ML
CL
OL
SILTS AND
CLAYS
SANDS WITH
FINES
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS
MH
CH
OH
PT
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
CLEAN SANDS
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
CLEAN GRAVELS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -CLAY MIXTURES
WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSANDS
POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSAND
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAYMIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR,CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHTPLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TOMEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTYCLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS ORDIATOMACEOUS SILTY SOILS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGHPLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OFMEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITHHIGH ORGANIC CONTENTSHIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION RETAINED
ON NO. 4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION PASSING
ON NO. 4 SIEVE
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -SILT MIXTURES
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES
LIQUID LIMIT GREATER
THAN 50
Continuous Coring
Bulk or grab
Direct-Push
Piston
Shelby tube
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
2.4-inch I.D. split barrel
Contact between soil of the same geologic
unit
Material Description Contact
Graphic Log Contact
NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions.
Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be
representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
Groundwater Contact
Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of
blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or distance noted).
See exploration log for hammer weight and drop.
"P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig.
"WOH" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the
hammer.
Key to Exploration Logs
Figure A-1
Sampler Symbol Descriptions
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS
NS
SS
MS
HS
No Visible Sheen
Slight Sheen
Moderate Sheen
Heavy Sheen
Sheen Classification
SYMBOLS
Asphalt Concrete
Cement Concrete
Crushed Rock/
Quarry Spalls
Topsoil
GRAPH LETTER
AC
CC
SOD Sod/Forest Duff
CR
DESCRIPTIONS
TYPICAL
TS
Percent fines
Percent gravel
Atterberg limits
Chemical analysis
Laboratory compaction test
Consolidation test
Dry density
Direct shear
Hydrometer analysis
Moisture content
Moisture content and dry density
Mohs hardness scale
Organic content
Permeability or hydraulic conductivity
Plasticity index
Point lead test
Pocket penetrometer
Sieve analysis
Triaxial compression
Unconfined compression
Vane shear
%F
%G
AL
CA
CP
CS
DD
DS
HA
MC
MD
Mohs
OC
PM
PI
PL
PP
SA
TX
UC
VS
Laboratory / Field Tests
Approximate SPT N-value is 25Approximately 2 to 4 inches quarry spalls in
cuttingsMD (DD = 127 pcf)
Groundwater observed at approximately 4½ feetbelow ground surface during drilling
Approximate SPT N-value is 11 MD (DD = 95 pcf)
8
6
24
94
21
7
3
Approximately 3 inches of brown silty fine sand withorganic matter (roots) and gravel (loose, dry)(topsoil)
Gray-brown fine to corse sand with gravel (mediumdense, moist) (fill)
Dark brown silty fine to coarse sand with occasionalgravel (loose to medium dense, wet) (fill)
Black-brown organic matter (partially decomposedwood) with sand and gravel (sot, wet) (fill)
Gray sandy lean clay (soft, wet) (fill?)
Brown-gray fine to medium sand (loose to mediumdense, wet) (fill?)
Gray silty fine sand with occasional clay lenses,approximate 1½-inch thick (very loose, wet) (native)
1
SA
MD
2
3
4
MD
5
MC
6
7
%F
8
14
10
6
12
16
16
20
18
60
26
8
28
3
11
8
2
TS
SP-SM
SM
PT
CL
SP
SM
Notes:
25 DSD
JJB GeoEngineers, Inc.Hollow-stem Auger
Truck-mounted CME-75DrillingEquipmentAutohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
ID State Plane WestNAD83 (feet)25348021184575
4995NAVD88
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Start TotalDepth (ft)
Logged By
Checked By
End
Surface Elevation (ft)Vertical Datum
Drilled
HammerData
SystemDatum
Driller DrillingMethod
See "Remarks" section for groundwater observed
7/23/20207/23/2020
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Hand Held GPS. Vertical approximated based on Topographic Survey.
Sheet 1 of 1Project Number:
Project Location:
Project:
McCall, Idaho
10476-007-00
Log of Boring B-1
Figure A-2
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
Date:9/3/20 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\10\10476007\GINT\1047600700.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%F_NO_GWREMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)FIELD DATA
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)IntervalBlows/footCollected SampleDepth (feet)0
5
10
15
20
25 Graphic LogGroupClassificationElevation (feet)49904985498049754970
Groundwater observed at approximately 5.7 feetbelow ground surface during drillingApproximate SPT N-value is 4
Approximate SPT N-value is 3
18
147
36
24
48
8
6
Approximately 4 inches of dark brown silty fine tomedium sand with organic matter (roots) andoccasional gravel (loose, moist) (topsoil)
Brown fine to coarse sand with silt and occasionalgravel (loose, moist?) (fill)
Black-brown organic matter (partially decomposedwood) with sand and gravel (soft to very soft, wet)(fill)
Gray sandy silt (very soft, wet) (fill)
Gray fine sand with silt and occasional debris (pieces ofmetal) (very loose, wet) (fill)
Gray lean clay with sand and occasional gravel(medium stiff, wet) (native)
1
2
%F
3
4
MC
5
MC
6
%F
7
8
MC
8
11
6
7
14
4
10
14
6
5
10
3
1
8
2
4
TS
SP-SM
PT
ML
SP-SM
CL
Notes:
25 DSD
JJB GeoEngineers, Inc.Hollow-stem Auger
Truck-mounted CME-75DrillingEquipmentAutohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
ID State Plane WestNAD83 (feet)25348431184776
4994NAVD88
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Start TotalDepth (ft)
Logged By
Checked By
End
Surface Elevation (ft)Vertical Datum
Drilled
HammerData
SystemDatum
Driller DrillingMethod
See "Remarks" section for groundwater observed
7/24/20207/24/2020
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Hand Held GPS. Vertical approximated based on Topographic Survey.
Sheet 1 of 1Project Number:
Project Location:
Project:
McCall, Idaho
10476-007-00
Log of Boring B-2
Figure A-3
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
Date:9/3/20 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\10\10476007\GINT\1047600700.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%F_NO_GWREMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)FIELD DATA
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)IntervalBlows/footCollected SampleDepth (feet)0
5
10
15
20
25 Graphic LogGroupClassificationElevation (feet)49904985498049754970
Drilled through pathway
Approximate SPT N-value is 23MD (DD = 123 pcf)
Groundwater observed at approximately 7.2 feetbelow ground surface during drilling
Approximate SPT N-value is 50+*Sampler on apparent cobble, blow counts
overstatedMD (DD = 132 pcf)
9
10
10
5.4
Approximately 3½ inches of asphalt concretepavement
Brown fine to coarse sand with silt, gravel andoccasional cobbles (medium dense, moist) (fill)
Dark gray-brown fine to coarse gravel with sand andoccasional cobbles (medium dense, moist) (fill)
Black-brown silty fine to coarse sand with organicmatter (partly decomposed wood, bark) (loose, wet)(fill)
Gray silty fine sand with occasional gravel and cobbles(medium dense, wet) (native)
1
%F
2
MD
3
4
5
MD
3
12
15
11
12
29
55
6
6
190/11"*
AC
SP-SM
GP-GM
SM
SM
Notes:
15 DSD
JJB GeoEngineers, Inc.Hollow-stem Auger
Truck-mounted CME-75DrillingEquipmentAutohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
ID State Plane WestNAD83 (feet)25349201184663
4999NAVD88
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Start TotalDepth (ft)
Logged By
Checked By
End
Surface Elevation (ft)Vertical Datum
Drilled
HammerData
SystemDatum
Driller DrillingMethod
See "Remarks" section for groundwater observed
7/23/20207/23/2020
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Hand Held GPS. Vertical approximated based on Topographic Survey.
Sheet 1 of 1Project Number:
Project Location:
Project:
McCall, Idaho
10476-007-00
Log of Boring B-3
Figure A-4
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
Date:9/3/20 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\10\10476007\GINT\1047600700.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%F_NO_GWREMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)FIELD DATA
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)IntervalBlows/footCollected SampleDepth (feet)0
5
10
15 Graphic LogGroupClassificationElevation (feet)499549904985
Asphalt core in good condition
Bulk sample from auger cuttings at approximately1 to 3 feet and 3 to 6 feet
Groundwater observed at approximately 5.4 feetbelow ground surface during drilling
6 7
Approximately 4½ inches of asphalt concretepavement
Approximately 3 inches of brown fine to coarse sandwith silt and gravel (medium dense, moist) (crushedaggregate base course)
Brown fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel (mediumdense, moist) (fill)
Black-brown silty fine to medium sand with organicmatter (partially decomposed wood) and occasionalgravel (very loose, moist) (fill?)
Gray-brown sandy silt (soft, wet) (native)
1
SA
2
3
10
15
12
11
2
3
AC
CR
SW-SM
SM
ML
Notes:Boring drilled on Lake Street
7.5 DSD
JJB GeoEngineers, Inc.Hollow-stem Auger
Truck-mounted CME-75DrillingEquipmentAutohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
ID State Plane WestNAD83 (feet)25349011183816
4997NAVD88
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Start TotalDepth (ft)
Logged By
Checked By
End
Surface Elevation (ft)Vertical Datum
Drilled
HammerData
SystemDatum
Driller DrillingMethod
See "Remarks" section for groundwater observed
7/23/20207/23/2020
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Hand Held GPS. Vertical approximated based on Topographic Survey.
Sheet 1 of 1Project Number:
Project Location:
Project:
McCall, Idaho
10476-007-00
Log of Boring B-4
Figure A-5
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
Date:9/3/20 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\10\10476007\GINT\1047600700.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%F_NO_GWREMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)FIELD DATA
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)IntervalBlows/footCollected SampleDepth (feet)0
5 Graphic LogGroupClassificationElevation (feet)49954990
Asphalt core in good condition
Bulk sample from auger cuttings at approximately1 to 2½ feet and 2½ feet to 4 feet
R-Value = 20
AL (LL =51, PI = 22)
14
26
31
Approximately 4 inches of asphalt concrete pavement
Approximately 2 inches of brown fine to coarse sandwith silt and gravel (medium dense, moist) (crushedaggregate base course)
Dark brown silty fine sand with occasional gravel (looseto medium dense, moist) (fill)
Gray sandy elastic silt (stiff, moist)
1
%F
2
AL
12
11
10
11
AC
CR
SM
MH
Notes:Boring drilled on Lake Street
5 DSD
JJB GeoEngineers, Inc.Hollow-stem Auger
Truck-mounted CME-75DrillingEquipmentAutohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
ID State Plane WestNAD83 (feet)25349461184186
5004NAVD88
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Start TotalDepth (ft)
Logged By
Checked By
End
Surface Elevation (ft)Vertical Datum
Drilled
HammerData
SystemDatum
Driller DrillingMethod
Groundwater not observed at time of exploration
7/23/20207/23/2020
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Hand Held GPS. Vertical approximated based on Topographic Survey.
Sheet 1 of 1Project Number:
Project Location:
Project:
McCall, Idaho
10476-007-00
Log of Boring B-5
Figure A-6
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
Date:9/3/20 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\10\10476007\GINT\1047600700.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%F_NO_GWREMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)FIELD DATA
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)IntervalBlows/footCollected SampleDepth (feet)0
5 Graphic LogGroupClassificationElevation (feet)5000
Groundwater observed at approximately 4.9 feetbelow ground surface during drilling
AL (non-plastic)
5
24
41
9
9
Dark brown silty fine to medium sand with occasionalorganic matter (roots) and occasional gravel (loose,moist) (fill)
Dark brown fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel(loose to medium dense, moist) (fill)
Black-brown fine sand with silt (very loose, moist) (fill?)
Brown-gray silty fine to medium sand with occasionalsilt lenses, approximately 1-inch thick (loose, wet)(native)
Dark gray silt with sand (medium stiff to very stiff, wet)
Dark gray sandy silt (stiff, wet)
Dark gray silty fine sand (medium dense, wet)
1
SA
2
%F
3
4
5
AL
6
7
8
13
12
15
11
16
0
14
12
10
2
9
13
7
17
9
18
SM
SW-SM
SP-SM
SM
ML
ML
SM
Notes:
25 DSD
JJB GeoEngineers, Inc.Hollow-stem Auger
Truck-mounted CME-75DrillingEquipmentAutohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
ID State Plane WestNAD83 (feet)25348921183909
4998NAVD88
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Start TotalDepth (ft)
Logged By
Checked By
End
Surface Elevation (ft)Vertical Datum
Drilled
HammerData
SystemDatum
Driller DrillingMethod
See "Remarks" section for groundwater observed
7/23/20207/23/2020
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Hand Held GPS. Vertical approximated based on Topographic Survey.
Sheet 1 of 1Project Number:
Project Location:
Project:
McCall, Idaho
10476-007-00
Log of Boring B-6
Figure A-7
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
Date:9/3/20 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\10\10476007\GINT\1047600700.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%F_NO_GWREMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)FIELD DATA
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)IntervalBlows/footCollected SampleDepth (feet)0
5
10
15
20
25 Graphic LogGroupClassificationElevation (feet)49954990498549804975
Approximate SPT N-value is 8AL (LL = 65, PI = 30)<<CR>MD (DD = 93 pcf)
Groundwater observed at approximately 4 feetbelow ground surface during drilling
Approximate SPT N-value is 6AL (Non-plastic)
MD (DD = 87 pcf)
Drilled to approximately 23 feet and augerplugged with heave
29
33
31
95
Brown silty fine sand with occasional gravel (loose,moist) (fill)
Dark brown to brown sandy silt with occasional gravel(medium stiff, moist) (native)
Gray elastic silt (medium stiff to stiff, wet)
Becomes very stiff
Dark gray silt with occasional gravel (medium stiff, wet)
Dark gray silty fine to medium sand (medium dense,wet)
1
2
ALMD
3
4
%F
5
6
AL
MD
7
10
10
17
15
16
18
10
6
22
8
18
7
15
15
SM
ML
MH
ML
SM
Notes:
23 DSD
JJB GeoEngineers, Inc.Hollow-stem Auger
Truck-mounted CME-75DrillingEquipmentAutohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
ID State Plane WestNAD83 (feet)25349071184280
4995NAVD88
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
Start TotalDepth (ft)
Logged By
Checked By
End
Surface Elevation (ft)Vertical Datum
Drilled
HammerData
SystemDatum
Driller DrillingMethod
See "Remarks" section for groundwater observed
7/22/20207/22/2020
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Hand Held GPS. Vertical approximated based on Topographic Survey.
Sheet 1 of 1Project Number:
Project Location:
Project:
McCall, Idaho
10476-007-00
Log of Boring B-7
Figure A-8
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
Date:9/3/20 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\10\10476007\GINT\1047600700.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%F_NO_GWREMARKS
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)FIELD DATA
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Sample NameTestingRecovered (in)IntervalBlows/footCollected SampleDepth (feet)0
5
10
15
20 Graphic LogGroupClassificationElevation (feet)4990498549804975
Approximately 5 inches of gray-brown silty fine sandwith organic matter (roots) (medium dense,moist) (topsoil)
Dark brown silty fine sand (loose, moist) (fill)
Gray-brown lean clay with sand (stiff, moist to wet)(native)
Brown-gray sandy silt with occasional sand lenses,2 inches thick (medium stiff to stiff, moist towet)
(Groundwater seepage observed at approximately12 feet during drilling)
1
%F
2
%F
3
4
5
6
10
14
19
18
15
14
5
11
8
15
8
14
TS
SM
CL
ML
Concrete surfaceseal
Bentonite chip seal2-inch Schedule 40PVC well casing
10-20 normalscreen
Sand backfill
10-20 pre-packscreen
2
6
7.3
12.3
17.317.5
15
32
26
83
Start
Drilled 7/22/2020
HammerData
Date MeasuredHorizontalDatum
Vertical Datum
Easting (X)Northing (Y)
DrillingEquipment
Top of CasingElevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Groundwater Depth toWater (ft)
Notes:
Surface Elevation (ft)
Logged By
Truck-mounted CME-75
4998.84999NAVD88
25349581183929 ID State Plane WestNAD83 (feet)8/19/2020 1.8
17.5 DrillingMethod7/22/2020
End
Checked By DrillerTotalDepth (ft)
Groundwater level in piezometer appears to indicate the presence of confining pressure
Autohammer140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop
4997.2
DSD
JJB GeoEngineers, Inc.Hollow-stem Auger
A 2-in well was installed on 7/22/2020 to a depth of 17.3 ft.
Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols.Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Hand Held GPS. Vertical approximated based on Topographic Survey.
Steel surface
monument
Elevation (feet)499549904985Depth (feet)0
5
10
15
FIELD DATA
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
Sample NameTestingWater LevelIntervalRecovered (in)Blows/footCollected SampleGraphic LogGroupClassificationWELL LOG
MoistureContent (%)FinesContent (%)Sheet 1 of 1Project Number:
Project Location:
Project:
McCall, Idaho
10476-007-00
Log of Boring B-8 (MW)
Figure A-9
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
Date:9/3/20 Path:\\GEOENGINEERS.COM\WAN\PROJECTS\10\10476007\GINT\1047600700.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_GEOTECH_WELL_%F
APPENDIX B
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Results
September 3, 2020 | Page B-1
File No. 10476-007-00
APPENDIX B
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST RESULTS
Subsurface conditions at the Lake Street Improvements site were explored at the location of borings B-4
and B-5, approximately below the asphalt and base course, using a Kessler Dynamic Cone Penetration
(DCP). General soil resistance properties were evaluated by driving a 60-degree, 0.790-inch-diameter
disposable steel cone attached to a ⅝-inch-diameter steel rod using a 17.6 pound-hammer falling
approximately 22.6 inches. The penetration depth was observed at selected intervals to a maximum depth
of about 40 inches below the starting point, or refusal; where refusal is defined as three blows with less
than 0.08 inches of movement, or the handle deviates laterally approximately 3 inches or more from the
vertical position. The DCP tests were conducted in general accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) D
6951.
We recorded penetration depths of the cone tip versus hammer blow counts and terminated testing at
depths of about 3½ feet below ground surface (bgs). We conducted DCP tests (DCP-1 and DCP-2) at the
locations of boring B-4 and B-5, respectively, as shown on Figure 2. We began the test at depths in the
range of about 7 to 8 inches bgs, after drilling through the base course. We estimated the resilient modulus
of the subgrade materials in general accordance with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Pavement Design Guide using a conversion coefficient, Cf, of 0.35. DCP test results are presented in Figures
B-1 and B-2.
Location: McCall, IdahoTest Hole Number: DCP‐1 at B‐4Depth to bottom: 42 inchesTest Method: Dynamic Cone PenetrationTester's Name: JJB/MJPGeoEngineers Job: 10476‐007‐00Tester's Company: GeoEngineers, Inc.Date: 7/22/2020Test incrementNumber of blowsCumulative blowsDepth below ground surfacePenetration per incrementCumulative penetrationCummulative PenetrationPenetration per blow setPenetration per blowHammer blow factor DCP Index DCP Index CBRMR###(in)(mm)(mm)(in)(in)(in)1 for 8‐kg 2 for 4.6‐kg hammer in/blow mm/blow % psi1‐08.0‐2038.0‐‐1‐‐‐‐2228.615.02188.60.60.31 0.30 7.50 31 78203249.010.02289.00.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 91594489.410.02389.40.40.11 0.10 2.50 105 1200252109.810.02489.80.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 9159631310.210.025810.20.40.11 0.13 3.33 76 10729741710.610.026810.60.40.11 0.10 2.50 105 12002852211.010.027811.00.40.11 0.08 2.00 134 13094942611.310.028811.30.40.11 0.10 2.50 105 120021032911.710.029811.70.40.11 0.13 3.33 76 107291143312.110.030812.10.40.11 0.10 2.50 105 120021263912.510.031812.50.40.11 0.07 1.67 165 140591344312.910.032812.90.40.11 0.10 2.50 105 120021454813.310.033813.30.40.11 0.08 2.00 134 130941565413.710.034813.70.40.11 0.07 1.67 165 140591666014.110.035814.10.40.11 0.07 1.67 165 140591746414.510.036814.50.40.11 0.10 2.50 105 120021846814.910.037814.90.40.11 0.10 2.50 105 120021937115.310.038815.30.40.11 0.13 3.33 76 107292047515.710.039815.70.40.11 0.10 2.50 105 120022147916.110.040816.10.40.11 0.10 2.50 105 120022258416.510.041816.50.40.11 0.08 2.00 134 130942348816.910.042816.90.40.11 0.10 2.50 105 120022439117.310.043817.30.40.11 0.13 3.33 76 107292539417.610.044817.60.40.11 0.13 3.33 76 107292639718.010.045818.00.40.11 0.13 3.33 76 1072927310018.410.046818.40.40.11 0.13 3.33 76 1072928410418.810.047818.80.40.11 0.10 2.50 105 1200229210619.210.048819.20.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 915930210819.610.049819.60.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 915931211020.010.050820.00.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 915932211220.410.051820.40.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 915933111320.810.052820.80.40.41 0.39 10.00 22 699034211521.210.053821.20.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 915935311822.020.055822.00.80.31 0.26 6.67 35 818736111922.410.056822.40.40.41 0.39 10.00 22 699037112022.810.057822.80.40.41 0.39 10.00 22 699038212223.210.058823.20.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 915939312523.920.060823.90.80.31 0.26 6.67 35 818740212724.310.061824.30.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 915941212924.710.062824.70.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 915942313225.520.064825.50.80.31 0.26 6.67 35 818743313526.320.066826.30.80.31 0.26 6.67 35 818744313827.120.068827.10.80.31 0.26 6.67 35 818745314127.920.070827.90.80.31 0.26 6.67 35 818746314428.720.072828.70.80.31 0.26 6.67 35 818747214629.110.073829.10.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 915948314929.920.075829.90.80.31 0.26 6.67 35 818749315230.620.077830.60.80.31 0.26 6.67 35 818750315531.420.079831.40.80.31 0.26 6.67 35 818751415932.220.081832.20.80.21 0.20 5.00 48 915952316233.020.083833.00.80.31 0.26 6.67 35 818753216433.820.085833.80.80.41 0.39 10.00 22 699054216634.620.087834.60.80.41 0.39 10.00 22 699055316935.625.090335.61.00.31 0.33 8.33 27 750556117036.320.092336.30.80.81 0.79 20.00 10 533457117136.915.093836.90.60.61 0.59 15.00 14 596758117237.720.095837.70.80.81 0.79 20.00 10 533459117338.520.097838.50.80.81 0.79 20.00 10 533460117439.320.099839.30.80.81 0.79 20.00 10 533461117540.120.0101840.10.80.81 0.79 20.00 10 533462117640.920.0103840.90.80.81 0.79 20.00 10 533463117742.130.0106842.11.21.21 1.18 30.00 6 4554Average of upper 18 inches: 11680 psiStandard Deviation of upper 18 inches: 1562 psiAverage below 18 inches: 7821 psiStandard Deviation below 18 inches: 1711 psi(after Webster et al., 1992)Webster, S. L., Grau, R. H., and Williams, T. P. (1992). Description and application of dual mass dynamic cone penetrometer. Department of the Army Waterways Equipment Station, No. GL‐92‐3.0510152025303540450 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200Cumulative Penetration (inches)Cumulative BlowsFile No. 10476-007-00DCP Test Results DCP-1Figure B-1
Location: McCall, IdahoTest Hole Number: DCP‐2 at B‐5Depth to bottom: 40 inchesTest Method: Dynamic Cone PenetrationTester's Name: JJB/MJPGeoEngineers Job: 10476‐007‐00Tester's Company: GeoEngineers, Inc.Date: 7/22/2020Test incrementNumber of blowsCumulative blowsDepth below ground surfacePenetration per incrementCumulative penetrationCummulative PenetrationPenetration per blow setPenetration per blowHammer blow factorDCP IndexDCP Index CBRMR###(in)(mm)(mm)(in)(in)(in)1 for 8‐kg 2 for 4.6‐kg hammer in/blow mm/blow % psi1‐06.0‐1526.0‐‐1‐‐‐‐2226.820.01726.80.80.41 0.39 10.00 22 69903247.210.01827.20.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 91594267.610.01927.60.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 91595288.010.02028.00.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 915963118.410.02128.40.40.11 0.13 3.33 76 1072974159.120.02329.10.80.21 0.20 5.00 48 915982179.510.02429.50.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 915992199.910.02529.90.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 91591022110.310.026210.30.40.21 0.20 5.00 48 91591132411.120.028211.10.80.31 0.26 6.67 35 81871222611.920.030211.90.80.41 0.39 10.00 22 69901322812.515.031712.50.60.31 0.30 7.50 31 78201423013.115.033213.10.60.31 0.30 7.50 31 78201523213.920.035213.90.80.41 0.39 10.00 22 69901623414.720.037214.70.80.41 0.39 10.00 22 69901723615.420.039215.40.80.41 0.39 10.00 22 69901813715.810.040215.80.40.41 0.39 10.00 22 69901913816.415.041716.40.60.61 0.59 15.00 14 59672013917.015.043217.00.60.61 0.59 15.00 14 59672114017.615.044717.60.60.61 0.59 15.00 14 59672214118.420.046718.40.80.81 0.79 20.00 10 53342314219.425.049219.41.01.01 0.98 25.00 8 48902414320.630.052220.61.21.21 1.18 30.00 6 45542514421.215.053721.20.60.61 0.59 15.00 14 59672614522.330.056722.31.21.21 1.18 30.00 6 45542714623.120.058723.10.80.81 0.79 20.00 10 53342814723.920.060723.90.80.81 0.79 20.00 10 53342914824.925.063224.91.01.01 0.98 25.00 8 48903014925.925.065725.91.01.01 0.98 25.00 8 48903115026.925.068226.91.01.01 0.98 25.00 8 48903215127.925.070727.91.01.01 0.98 25.00 8 48903315229.235.074229.21.41.41 1.38 35.00 5 42883415330.430.077230.41.21.21 1.18 30.00 6 45543515432.040.081232.01.61.61 1.57 40.00 5 40713615534.050.086234.02.02.01 1.97 50.00 4 37313715635.540.090235.51.61.61 1.57 40.00 5 40713815737.140.094237.11.61.61 1.57 40.00 5 40713915838.330.097238.31.21.21 1.18 30.00 6 45544015939.530.0100239.51.21.21 1.18 30.00 6 4554Average of upper 18 inches: 7926 psiStandard Deviation of upper 18 inches: 1364 psiAverage below 18 inches: 4706 psiStandard Deviation below 18 inches: 547 psi(after Webster et al., 1992)Webster, S. L., Grau, R. H., and Williams, T. P. (1992). Description and application of dual mass dynamic cone penetrometer. Department of the Army Waterways Equipment Station, No. GL‐92‐3.0510152025303540450 255075Cumulative Penetration (inches)Cumulative BlowsFile No. 10476-007-00DCP Test Results DCP-2Figure B-2
APPENDIX C
Pavement Core Photos
Figure C-1
Pavement Core Photographs
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
McCall, Idaho
Photograph 1. Pavement Core: Boring B-4 10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/07/2020
Figure C-2
Pavement Core Photographs
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
McCall, Idaho
Photograph 2. Pavement Core: Boring B-5 10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/07/2020
APPENDIX D
Laboratory Test Results
September 3, 2020 | Page D-1
File No. 10476-007-00
APPENDIX D
Laboratory Test Results
Soil samples obtained from the explorations were returned to our laboratory for further examination and
testing. Representative soil samples were selected for laboratory tests to evaluate select geotechnical
engineering characteristics of the site soil and to confirm or revise our field classification. Soil samples
obtained from the borings were visually classified in the field and/or in our laboratory using the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) and ASTM classification methods. ASTM test method D 2488 (Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils) was used in the field to visually classify the soil samples, while
ASTM D 2487 (Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes) was used to classify the soil based on
laboratory tests results. These classification procedures are incorporated in the log of borings shown in
Figures A-2 through A-9 in Appendix A, Field Explorations.
The test procedures were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM test procedures (“in
general accordance” means certain local and common descriptive practices and methodologies have been
followed). The laboratory soil testing program is summarized in Table D-1, Summary of Laboratory Testing.
TABLE D-1. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
Standard Test Method for:
Test Method
Designation
Total Tests
Performed Results Location
Laboratory Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil
ASTM D 2216 24 Presented in Figures A-2 to A-9 in the
“Moisture Content, %” column
Laboratory Determination of
Density (Unit Weight) of Soil
Specimens
ASTM D2937 6 Presented in Figures A-2 to A-9 in in the
“Remarks” column.
Determining the Amount of
Material Finer than 75-μm
(No. 200) Sieve in Soils by Washing
ASTM D1140 12 Presented in in Figures A-2 to A-9 in
the “Fines Content, %” column
Sieve Analysis determining the
gradation of soil samples
ASTM C136 3 Presented in Figure D-1
% Fines presented in Figures A-2 to A-9 in
the “Fines Content, %” column
Atterberg Limits Determination ASTM D 4318 4 Presented in Figure D-2
Liquid Limits and Plasticity Index
presented in Figures A-2 to A-9 in the
“Remarks” column
R-Value Idaho T-8 1 Presented in Figure D-3.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
SAND SILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVEL
COARSE MEDIUM FINECOARSEFINE
Boring Number Depth(feet)Soil Description
B-1
B-4
B-6
1 –2½
1 –2½
1 –2½
Sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM)
Sand with silt and gravel (SW-SM)
Sand with silt and gravel (SW-SM)
Symbol Moisture(%)
8
6
5
3/8”3”1.5”#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1003/4”Figure D-1Sieve Analysis ResultsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationMcCall, Idaho10476-007-00 Date Exported 08/07/2020
Note:This report may not be reproduced,except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers,Inc.Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were
performed,and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times,depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.
The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913.
#200
Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable
only to the specific sample on which they were performed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other
samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.
The liquid limit and plasticity index were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 4318.
Figure D-2
Atterberg Limits Test Results
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
McCall, Idaho
10476-007-00 Date Exported 08/07/2020
Symbol BoringNumber Depth(feet)
Moisture Content(%)
Liquid Limit(%)
Plasticity Index(%)Soil Description
B-5
B-7
3½ - 5
3 –4½
26
29
51
65
22
30
Elastic silt (MH)
Elastic silt (MH)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100PLASTICITY INDEX LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY CHART
CL-ML ML or OL
CL or OL
OH or MH
CH or OH
Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable
only to the specific sample on which they were performed and should not be interpreted as representative of any other
samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes. Figure D-3
Idaho R-value Test Results
No.
Compact Pressure (psi)Density (pcf)
Moisture Content(%)
Expansion Pressure (psi)
Horizontal Press. Psi @ 160 psi
75
100
100
112.2
114.8
111.2
17.4
16.7
15.8
0.00
0.09
0.00
135
130
110
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Expansion Pressure (psi)R-ValueExudation Pressure -psi
R-Value Test ReportIdaho T-8
R-Value Curve
Expansion Pressure
1
2
3
2.61
2.48
2.48
107
239
159
10.1
13.3
22.1
10.8
13.3
22.1
Boring: B-5
Depth: 2.5 -4 feet Material Description
Sandy elastic silt (MH)R-Value = 20
Sample Height (in)
Exud. Pressure (psi)
RValue
RValueCorr.
Shoreline Promenade and Stabilization
McCall, Idaho
10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/07/20
APPENDIX E
Slope Stability Analysis Results
1.49Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,000252681131182SP-SMSMPTCLSPSMColor NameUnit Weight (pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Upper Fill 125 034Organic Fill Soils 80 350 0Lower Fill 105 028Native Soils 105 028Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0B-1Surcharge (Unit Weight): 250 pcfHigh Pool (4992.6 ft)Figure E-1Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown areapproximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Slope Stability Results - Existing Conditions Section B-1 - Static, High-Pool
0.88Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,000252681131182SP-SMSMPTCLSPSMColor NameUnit Weight (pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Upper Fill 125 034Organic Fill Soils 80 350 0Lower Fill 105 028Native Soils 105 028Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0.124B-1High Pool (4992.6 ft)Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown areapproximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-2Slope Stability Results - Existing Conditions Section B-1 - Seismic, High-Pool
1.28Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,000252681131182SP-SMSMPTCLSPSMColor NameUnit Weight (pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Upper Fill 125 034Organic Fill Soils 80 350 0Lower Fill 105 028Native Soils 105 028Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0B-1Surcharge (Unit Weight): 250 pcfLow Pool (4987 ft)Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown areapproximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-3Slope Stability Results - Existing Conditions Section B-1 - Static, Low-Pool
0.85Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,000252681131182SP-SMSMPTCLSPSMColor NameUnit Weight (pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Upper Fill 125 034Organic Fill Soils 80 350 0Lower Fill 105 028Native Soils 105 028Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0.124B-1Low Pool (4987 ft)Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown areapproximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-4Slope Stability Results - Existing Conditions Section B-1 - Seismic, Low-Pool
1.51Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,0002681131182SP-SMSMPTCLSPSMColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 105 0 28Orgainc Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0B-12H:1VHigh Pool (4992.6 ft) 11 ft Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsFigure E-5Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Section B-1 - Static, High Pool, 2:1 Slope
0.86Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,0002681131182SP-SMSMPTCLSPSMColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 105 0 28Orgainc Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0.124B-1High Pool (4992.6 ft)2H:1V 11 ft Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-6Section B-1 - Seismic, High Pool, 2:1 Slope
1.27Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,0002681131182SP-SMSMPTCLSPSMColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 105 0 28Orgainc Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0B-12H:1VLow Pool (4987 ft) 11 ft Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-7Section B-1 - Static, Low Pool, 2:1 Slope
0.84Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,0002681131182SP-SMSMPTCLSPSMColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 105 0 28Orgainc Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0.124B-12H:1VLow Pool (4987 ft) 11 ft Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-8Section B-1 - Seismic, Low Pool, 2:1 Slope
1.69Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,000252681131182SP-SMSMPTCLSPSMColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 105 0 28Orgainc Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0B-13H:1VHigh Pool (4992.6 ft)Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsFigure E-9Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Section B-1 - Static, High Pool, 3:1 Slope
0.90Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,000252681131182SP-SMSMPTCLSPSMColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 105 0 28Orgainc Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0.124B-1High Pool (4992.6 ft)3H:1VSlope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-10Section B-1 - Seismic, High Pool, 3:1 Slope
1.48Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,000252681131182SP-SMSMPTCLSPSMColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 105 0 28Orgainc Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0B-13H:1VLow Pool (4987 ft)Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-11Section B-1 - Static, Low Pool, 3:1 Slope
0.88Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,000252681131182SP-SMSMPTCLSPSMColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 105 0 28Orgainc Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0.124B-13H:1VLow Pool (4987 ft)Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-12Section B-1 - Seismic, Low Pool, 3:1 Slope
1.62Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,00065431324SP-SMPTMLSP-SMCLColor NameUnit Weight (pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Upper Fill 125 034Organic Fill Soils 80 350 0Native Soils 90 500 0Lower Fill 105 028Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0B-2Surcharge (Unit Weight): 250 pcfHigh Pool (4992.6 ft)Figure E-13Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown areapproximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Slope Stability Results - Existing Conditions Section B-2 - Static, High-Pool
1.07Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,00065431324SP-SMPTMLSP-SMCLColor NameUnit Weight (pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Upper Fill 125 034Organic Fill Soils 80 350 0Native Soils 90 500 0Lower Fill 105 028Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0.124B-2High Pool (4992.6 ft)Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown areapproximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Slope Stability Results - Existing Conditions Section B-2 - Seismic, High-PoolFigure E-14
1.29Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,00065431324SP-SMPTMLSP-SMCLColor NameUnit Weight (pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Upper Fill 125 034Organic Fill Soils 80 350 0Native Soils 90 500 0Lower Fill 105 028Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0B-2Surcharge (Unit Weight): 250 pcfLow Pool (4987 ft)Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown areapproximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-15Slope Stability Results - Existing Conditions Section B-2 - Static, Low-Pool
0.95Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,00065431324SP-SMPTMLSP-SMCLColor NameUnit Weight (pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Upper Fill 125 034Organic Fill Soils 80 350 0Native Soils 90 500 0Lower Fill 105 028Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0.124B-2Low Pool (4987 ft)Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown areapproximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Slope Stability Results - Existing Conditions Section B-2 - Seismic, Low-PoolFigure E-16
1.68Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,00065431324SP-SMPTMLSP-SMCLColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 90 500 0Organic Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0B-22H:1VHigh Pool (4992.6 ft) 11 ft Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsFigure E-17Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Section B-2 - Static, High Pool, 2:1 Slope
0.95Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,00065431324SP-SMPTMLSP-SMCLColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 90 500 0Organic Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0.124B-22H:1VHigh Pool (4992.6 ft) 11 ft Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-18Section B-2 - Seismic, High Pool, 2:1 Slope
1.30Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,00065431324SP-SMPTMLSP-SMCLColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 90 500 0Organic Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0B-22H:1VLow Pool (4987 ft) 11 ft Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-19Section B-2 - Static, Low Pool, 2:1 Slope
0.86Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,00065431324SP-SMPTMLSP-SMCLColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 90 500 0Organic Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0.124B-22H:1VLow Pool (4987 ft) 11 ft Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-20Section B-2 - Seismic, Low Pool, 2:1 Slope
1.96Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,00065431324SP-SMPTMLSP-SMCLColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 90 500 0Organic Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0B-23H:1VHigh Pool (4992.6 ft)Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsFigure E-21Shoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Section B-2 - Static, High Pool, 3:1 Slope
1.07Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,00065431324SP-SMPTMLSP-SMCLColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 90 500 0Organic Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0.124B-23H:1VHigh Pool (4992.6 ft)Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-22Section B-2 - Seismic, High Pool, 3:1 Slope
1.56Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,00065431324SP-SMPTMLSP-SMCLColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 90 500 0Organic Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0B-23H:1VLow Pool (4987 ft)Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-23Section B-2 - Static, Low Pool, 3:1 Slope
0.95Distance from Boring (ft)-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)4,9504,9604,9704,9804,9905,00065431324SP-SMPTMLSP-SMCLColor Name Unit Weight(pcf)Cohesion'(psf)Phi' (°)Lower Fill 105 0 28Native Soils 90 500 0Organic Fill Soils80 350 0Riprap 135 0 45Upper Fill 125 0 34Projected ElevationsHorz Seismic Coef.: 0.124B-23H:1VLow Pool (4987 ft)Slope Stability Results - Proposed ConditionsShoreline Promenade and StabilizationNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.McCall, Idaho2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and context of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.10476-007-00 Date Exported: 08/04/2020Figure E-24Section B-2 - Seismic, Low Pool, 3:1 Slope
APPENDIX F
Pavement Design Calculations
FLEXIBLE ASPHALT PAVEMENT DESIGN - GRAVEL EQUIVALENCY (GE) METHOD
Project: City of McCall - East Lake Street Improvements
File: 10476-007-00
Date: 4-Aug-20
Section: East Lake Street
Design Subgrade Support R-value: 20
Estimated Traffic Index (T.I.): 6.5
Regional Climate Factor, F: 1.15 (see figure 510.04.01.1
ITD Materials Manual)
Material Substitution Ratios
Asphalt: 2.20 (see Table 510.05.1 ITD Materials Manual)
Base: 1.00
Subbase: 0.85
Aggregate Base Course Minimum Support R-value: 80
Subbase Course Mininum Support R-value: 60
Minimum Design Gravel Equivalence (GE)= 1.920 feet
Recommended Asphalt Concrete Thickness: 0.218 feet
Design Asphalt Thickness: 0.33 feet (0.15 feet min.)
(0.25 feet min. on ATPB)
Recommended Aggregate Base Course Thickness: 0.227 feet
Design Base Thickness: 0.33 feet (0.35 feet min.)
(round to next 0.05 feet)(ATB, ATPB, UTB)
1.00
Recommended Subbase Course Thickness: 1.004 feet
Design Subbase Thickness: 1.00 feet (0.35 feet min., if used
(round to next 0.05 feet)or 2 x max particle size)
DESIGN PAVEMENT SECTION:
Asphalt concrete: 0.33 feet
Base course: 0.33 feet
Subbase course: 1.00 feet
GE Provided : 1.92 feet
Mininum GE Required: 1.92 feet
8/5/2020
APPENDIX G
Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use
September 3, 2020 | Page G-1
File No. 10476-007-00
APPENDIX G
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1
This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report.
Read These Provisions Closely
It is important to recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology and
environmental science) rely on professional judgment and opinion to a greater extent than other
engineering and natural science disciplines, where more precise and/or readily observable data may exist.
To help clients better understand how this difference pertains to our services, GeoEngineers includes the
following explanatory “limitations” provisions in its reports. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you need to
know more how these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project or site.
Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects
This report has been prepared for Horrocks Engineers, Inc. and for the projects specifically identified in the
report. The information contained herein is not applicable to other sites or projects.
GeoEngineers structures its services to meet the specific needs of its clients. No party other than the party
to whom this report is addressed may rely on the product of our services unless we agree to such reliance
in advance and in writing. Within the limitations of the agreed scope of services for the Project, and its
schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with Horrocks
Engineers, Inc. dated July 15, 2020, executed on July 17, 2020, and generally accepted geotechnical
practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. We do not authorize, and will not be responsible
for, the use of this report for any purposes or projects other than those identified in the report.
A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report is based on a Unique Set of Project-Specific
Factors
This report has been prepared for the four projects described in the report. GeoEngineers considered a
number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and
report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, it is important not to rely on this report if it
was:
■ not prepared for you,
■ not prepared for your project,
■ not prepared for the specific site explored, or
■ completed before important project changes were made.
For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect:
■ the function of the proposed structure;
1 Developed based on material provided by GBA, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences;
www.geoprofessional.org.
September 3, 2020 | Page G-2
File No. 10476-007-00
■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure;
■ composition of the design team; or
■ project ownership.
If changes occur after the date of this report, GeoEngineers cannot be responsible for any consequences
of such changes in relation to this report unless we have been given the opportunity to review our
interpretations and recommendations. Based on that review, we can provide written modifications or
confirmation, as appropriate.
Environmental Concerns are Not Covered
Unless environmental services were specifically included in our scope of services, this report does not
provide any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations, including but not limited to, the
likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed.
The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by man -made events
such as construction on or adjacent to the site, new information or technology that becomes available
subsequent to the report date, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or
groundwater fluctuations. If more than a few months have passed since issuance of our report or work
product, or if any of the described events may have occurred, please contact GeoEngineers before applying
this report for its intended purpose so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the
continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations.
Geotechnical and Geologic Findings are Professional Opinions
Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling
locations at the site. Site exploration identifies the specific subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data
and then applied its professional judgment to render an informed opinion about subsurface conditions at
other locations. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from the opinions
presented in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations are not a warranty of the actual
subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations are Not Final
We have developed the following recommendations based on data gathered from subsurface
investigation(s). These investigations sample just a small percentage of a site to create a snapshot of the
subsurface conditions elsewhere on the site. Such sampling on its own cannot provide a complete and
accurate view of subsurface conditions for the entire site. Therefore, the recommendations included in this
report are preliminary and should not be considered final. GeoEngineers’ recommendations can be
finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers
cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations in this report if we do not perform
construction observation.
September 3, 2020 | Page G-3
File No. 10476-007-00
We recommend that you allow sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation during construction by
GeoEngineers to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the
explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes if the conditions revealed du ring the work
differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities are completed in accordance
with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most
effective means of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. If another party performs
field observation and confirms our expectations, the other party must take full responsibility for both the
observations and recommendations. Please note, however, that another party would lack our project-
specific knowledge and resources.
A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation
Misinterpretation of this report by members of the design team or by contractors can result in costly
problems. GeoEngineers can help reduce the risks of misinterpretation by conferring with appropriate
members of the design team after submitting the report, reviewing pertinent elements of the design team’s
plans and specifications, participating in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and providing
construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs
Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation
of field logs and laboratory data. The logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Photographic or electronic
reproduction is acceptable, but separating logs from the report can create a risk of misinterpretation.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance
To help reduce the risk of problems associated with unanticipated subsurface conditions, GeoEngineers
recommends giving contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, including these
“Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use.” When providing the report, you should preface it with a clearly
written letter of transmittal that:
■ advises contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that its
accuracy is limited; and
■ encourages contractors to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer.
Contractors are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects
Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s procedures, methods,
schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for
managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and adjacent properties.
Biological Pollutants
GeoEngineers’ Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment
of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations,
recommendations, findings or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of
Biological Pollutants, and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants as
September 3, 2020 | Page G-4
File No. 10476-007-00
they may relate to this project. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi,
spores, bacteria and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts.
A Client that desires these specialized services is advised to obtain them from a consultant who offers
services in this specialized field.
Information Provided by Others
GeoEngineers has relied upon certain data or information provided or compiled by others in the
performance of our services. Although we use sources that we reasonably believe to be trustworthy,
GeoEngineers cannot warrant or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information provided or
compiled by others.
GEOENGINEERS