Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2003.02.27 WH Pacific Airport Engineer's Preliminary Design ReportWllPacifltMORAN MEDUM TO: McCall Airport Environmental Assessment Committee FROM: Rainse Anderson, PE DATE: February 27, 2009 PROJECT: McCall Airport Environmental Assessment (#034256) SUBJECT: Alternatives Discussion In preparation for our March 10th meeting, we are transmitting to you a large amount of information regarding alternative actions for the airport. We are including the following documents: • Alternatives Technical Memorandum • Engineers Design Report, with site plans • Biological Evaluation Report • Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Resources Inventory Report • Wetland Delineation Report We suggest you read the Alternatives Technical Memorandum first. The Design Report provides some additional background information and detailed plan and profile drawings of the alternatives. The resource reports are provided for your general information. As you will see in the Alternatives Technical Memorandum we have identified four alternatives. For the purpose of the Environmental Assessment (EA), we will retain the No Action Alternative as a baseline for comparison. The remaining three build alternatives vary the runway/taxiway centerline separation from a minimum of 240 feet outward to a maximum of 400 feet. At our next meeting, we will go over the alternatives in detail, and seek your input toward reducing the number of alternatives further. Ideally, the EA will review one or two proposed actions, along with the No Action Alternative. If you have any questions in the interim, please contact myself or anyone on the project team. Regards, Rainse E. Anderson, P.E. cc: John Anderson, McCall Airport Paul Holmquist, Federal Aviation Administration P:ICih- ofMcCa1P\034256Wesign\ReportslAEAC#1 Alt Packet (2).dOCX February 27, 2009 WHPacific MEMORANDUM Date: 8/26/2009 To: City Councilors Company: McCall City Council Phone: 208-634-7142 Fax: 208-634-3038 Address 216 East Park Street McCall, ID 83638 City Councilors, 9755 SW Barnes Rd, Ste 300 Portland, OR 97225 503.626.0455 Fax: 503.526.0775 RE: Additional Cost Estimating From: Rainse Anderson Title: project Manager Phone: 503-372-3521 Fax: 503-526-0775 Project#: 034256 Project Name: McCall Airport EA As a follow-up from June 5th Council meeting, we have prepared additional cost estimates for your consideration. We have developed costs for the following: • 20 -year maintenance costs for the alternatives • 50' wide taxiway at each of the alternate locations • Cost to rehabilitate the taxiway pavement at 240' in 20 years • Cost to relocate the taxiway from 240' to 300' in 20 years Please note, all costs are in 2009 dollars and not adjusted for future values. 20 -Year Maintenance Costs To account for taxiway pavement maintenance costs, the following schedule was designed to develop a maintenance cost estimate. • Annual crack sealing beginning 4 years after construction • Fog seals at 5 and 10 years • Slurry seal at.:15 year • Paint restriping at 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 18 years Using this maintenance schedule, cost estimates for 20 -year maintenance for each alternative are: • Alternative 2 (240') = $399,500 • Alternative 3 (300') = $405,500 • Alternative 4 (400') = $413,500 The 20 -year maintenance estimate would be in addition to the cost estimate prepared for construction of each alternative. Note that these costs are significantly lower than the 20 year maintenance costs presented in Alternative #1, No Build, because an overlay is not anticipated within the 20 years as in Alt. #1. Estimated Cost for 50' Wide Taxiway :The following estimates were calculated using the assumption no additional wetland mitigation would be necessary. The line item containing "permitting" would cover costs associated with (construction and environmental permits. y Modification to Alternative 2: 240' Separation Alternative 2 represents a runway/taxiway centerline separation of 240'. The estimated cost for I a 35' wide taxiway at 240' is $3,803,300. A 50' taxiway is estimated to cost $5,038,625, as shown below. 1 35' Width at 240' Construction Costs: Parallel Taxiway Relo. Wetlands Mit. (0.97 ac) Property Acq. (0.61 ac) Subtotal Contingency (25%) Construction Cost Subtotal Engineering and Inspection Separation $ 2,179,600 $ 116,160 $ 61,000 $ 2,356,760 $ 589,190 $ 2,945,950 $ 817,350 (30% of Twy Relo& 25% Contingency) City of McCall Administration $ 25,000 Permitting $ 15,000 otal Estimated Cost: $ 3,803,300 50' Width at 240' Construction Costs: Parallel Taxiway Relo. Wetlands Mit. (0.97 ac) Property Acq. (0.61 ac) Subtotal Contingency (25%) Construction Cost Subtotal Separation $ 2,939,800 $ 116,160 $ 61.000 $ 3,116,960 $ 779,240 $ 3,896,200 Engineering and Inspection $ 1,102,425 (30% of Twy Relo & 25% Contingency) City of McCall Administration $ 25,000 Permitting $ 15,000 Total Estimated Cost: $ 5,038,625 iModification to Alternative 3: 300' Separation ;Alternative 3 represents a runway/taxiway centerline separation of 300'. The estimated cost for a 35' wide taxiway at 300' is $4,953,865. A 50' taxiway is estimated to cost $6,164,825, as shown below. 35' Width at 300' Separation Construction Costs: Parallel Taxiway Relo. Wetlands Mit. (1.39 ac) Property Acq. (8.16 ac) Subtotal Contingency (25%) Construction Cost Subtotal $ 2,268,100 $ 166,560 $ 816,000 $ 3,250,660 $ 812,665 $ 4,063,325 Engineering and Inspection $ 850,540 (30% of Twy Relo& 25% Contingency) ,City of McCall Administration $ 25,000 Permitting $ 15,000 Total Estimated Cost: $ 4,953,865 50' Width at 300' Separation Construction Costs: Parallel Taxiway Relo. Wetlands Mit. (1.39 ac) Property Acq. (8.16 ac) Subtotal Contingency (25%) $ 3,013,300 $ 166,560 $ 816.000 $ 3,995,860 $ 998,965 Construction Cost Subtotal $ 4,994,825 Engineering and Inspection $ 1,130,000 (30% of Twy Relo & 25% Contingency) City of McCall Administration $ 25,000 Permitting $ 15,000 Total Estimated Cost: $ 6,164,825 iModification to Alternative 4: 400' Separation Alternative 4 represents a runway/taxiway centerline separation of 400'. The estimated cost for a 35' wide taxiway at 400' is $6,200,780. A 50' taxiway is estimated to cost $7,531,000, as shown below. 35' Width at 400' Separation 50' Width at 400' Separation Construction Costs: Construction Costs: Parallel Taxiway Relo. $ 2,527,400 Parallel Taxiway Relo. $ 3,346,000 Wetlands Mit. (0.30 ac) $ 36,000 Wetlands Mit. (0.30 ac) $ 36,000 Property Acq. (16.07 ac) $ 1,607,000 Property Acq. (16.07 ac) $ 1,607,000 Subtotal $ 4,170,400 Subtotal $ 4,989,000 Contingency (25%) $ 1,042,600 Contingency (25%) $ 1.247,250 I Construction Cost Subtotal $ 5,213,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $ 6,236,250 ;Engineering and Inspection $ 947,780 Engineering and Inspection $ 1,254,750 (30% of Twy Relo& 25% Contingency) (30% of Twy Relo & 25% Contingency) City of McCall Administration $ 25,000 City of McCall Administration $ 25,000 Permitting $ 15,000 Permitting $ 15,000 Notal Estimated Cost: $ 6,200,780 Total Estimated Cost: $ 7,531,000 Rehabilitation of Taxiway Pavement at 240' in 20 years It was asked by the Council what it would cost to rehabilitate the taxiway in 20 years, if constructed at a distance of 240' at the completion of this project. The cost of rehabilitating the taxiway would be in addition to the $3,803,300 expended to originally construct the taxiway at a width of 35'. The following assumptions for rehabilitating the taxiway were used in the cost estimate: • Milling 2-3" of existing pavement • Overlay with 3-4" of new asphalt pavement • Restripe pavement • 25% Contingency and 25% for Engineering and Inspection ?The total estimated cost to rehabilitate a taxiway located 240' from the runway in 20 years would be $2,000,000. Relocation of the Taxiway from 240' to 300' in 20 years Another scenario asked by the Council was, what is the cost to relocate the taxiway to 300' in 20 years when/if the Airport Reference Code becomes C -II? Cost estimates for construction of this scenario were developed using the assumptions: • Taxiway width of 35 feet • Minimal additional wetland mitigation required, since the 240' option has the greatest impact to wetlands. • Additional property acquisition required (7.55 acres) • Includes environmental documentation and permitting Using these assumptions, the cost to relocate the taxiway from 240' to 300' after 20 years would be $4,922,775 (2009 dollars). This figure is less than the estimate to construct the 300' option today, because some property acquisition and wetland mitigation would have been completed to construct the 240' option. If you have any questions about the information presented above, please feel free to call or email. Regards, Rainse E. Anderson, P.E. 503.372.3521 randerson(i whDacific.com ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT TAXIWAY RELOCATION PROJECT AIP NO. 3-16-0023-014 McCALL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FEBRUARY 2009 DRAFT ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT McCALL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY RELOCATION PROJECT AIP NO. 3-16-0023-014 FEBRUARY 2009 Prepared by: WHPacific, Inc. 3501 W. Elder St., Suite 200 Boise, ID 83705 Project Engineer: Jason Ritchie, PE DRAFT Prepared for: City of McCall 216 East Park Street McCall, Idaho 83638 Section 1 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION General 1-1 Description of Work 1-1 Design Report Objectives 1-2 SECTION 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS Pavements 2-1 Geotechnical Testing 2-1 Drainage 2-2 Lighting, Signing, & NAVAIDS 2-3 SECTION 3 — DESIGN Conformance with Agency Standards 3-1 Pavement Markings 3-3 Pavements 3-4 Grading & Drainage 3-6 SECTION 4 — TAXIWAY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 4-1 Alternative 2 4-2 Alternative 3 4-3 SECTION 5 — PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Alternative 1 5-1 Alternative 2 5-2 Alternative 3 5-3 SECTION 6 - SAFETY General 6-1 SECTION 7 - SAFETY General 7-1 Planned Closures 7-1 Safety Guidelines 7-1 Vehicle Marking 7-1 Traffic Control 7-1 APPENDIX 1 Geotechnical Report APPENDIX 2 Existing Pavement Data APPENDIX 3 Preliminary Cost Estimate APPENDIX 4 Pavement Design APPENDIX 5 Preliminary Construction Plans (25%) (Separate package with Draft Copy) Introduction 1-1 Section 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION The McCall Municipal Airport (MYL) is located at the south end of the city of McCall, Idaho along State Highway 55. The City of McCall is located in west -central Idaho along the south shore of Payette Lake and approximately 100 miles north of Boise, Idaho. The City of McCall recently completed an Airport Master Plan for the McCall Municipal Airport that identified several deficiencies according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards. The deficiencies are based on the Airport's existing Airport Reference Code (ARC) of. B -II and relate to the required separation between the runway and the east parallel taxiway. The City of McCall, in association with the FAA, is considering relocating the parallel taxiway to provide the required separation for the existing ARC as indicated in the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The City has contracted with WHPacific (WHP) to provide an Environmental Assessment for the taxiway relocation which involves a 15% - 25% design effort of the proposed airport improvements. WHP subcontracted geotechnical pre -design testing services to Kleinfelder, which provided WHP with the geotechnical data necessary to determine the design pavement section for the taxiway. The geotechnical report did not include existing pavement thicknesses or conditions. DESCRIPTION OF WORK The relocation of the Parallel Taxiway would involve the following improvements: 1. Removal of existing east parallel taxiway. 2. Relocation of east parallel taxiway to provide at least the minimum FAA standard runway -taxiway centerline separation distance for the current ARC of B -II. 3. Construction of associated connecting taxiways A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-5. 4. Grading, drainage, and obstacle removal necessary for the proposed improvements. 5. Property acquisition for taxiway relocation. 6. Wetland mitigation, as necessary. DESIGN REPORT OBJECTIVES This design report describes the technical aspects of the project, including a review of existing conditions, a statement of design criteria and assumptions, safety concerns, a discussion of construction scheduling, and preliminary quantity and cost estimates. Section 3, Design Analysis, generally follows the outline for design reports recommended by the FAA. Introduction 1-2 J '' McCALL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SITE PLAN CITY OF McCALL, IDAHO DRAWING INFO ' NNW ' 034256 VERALL SCALE : N.T.S. SHEET INFO DRAWN JRH CHECKED AW 1 LAST EDR 2272009 I PLOT DATE 2272009 WllPaufit Section 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PAVEMENT Runway Pavement MYL has one paved runway (Runway 16-34) at a length of 6,106 feet and a width of 75 feet. According to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) of 2007, the runway pavement at McCall Municipal Airport is rated for single wheel gear 80,000 -pound aircraft. This project involves the relocation of the existing parallel taxiway, so the condition and thickness of the runway pavement are not necessary to this project. Taxiway Pavement Runway 16-34 has a parallel taxiway on its east side that extends the length of the runway and is 50 feet wide. The parallel taxiway originally served as the runway for the airport and is offset 200 feet from the current runway centerline. MYL has five connecting taxiways between the runway and the east parallel taxiway. Taxiway A-1 is the north end connector taxiway and is 50 feet wide and is bounded on the north by an asphalt apron. Taxiway A-2 is the northernmost of three midfield connector taxiways and is 50 feet wide. It is approximately 1,870 feet south of the Runway 16 end. Taxiway A-3 is the midfield connector taxiway and is 50 feet wide. Taxiway A-4 is the southernmost of three midfield connector taxiways and is 100 feet wide. It is approximately 1,140 feet north of the Runway 34 end. Taxiway A-5 is the south end connector taxiway and is 50 feet wide. Existing pavement section data from the most current pavement inspection report is included in Appendix 2. GEOTECHNICAL TESTING Kleinfelder performed geotechnical testing at the airport on November 12, 2008. Fourteen test pits were excavated and sampled along the alignments of the three proposed taxiway alternatives to determine soil compositions, ground water levels, and to acquire samples for laboratory tests, including the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test. The geotechnical investigation did not include existing pavement thicknesses or conditions. Groundwater was encountered in 5 of the 14 test pits during the field evaluation. The five test pits are all located at the southern end of the project. The preliminary geotechnical report is included in Appendix 1 and includes a map of the test pit locations. Existing Conditions 2-1 Section 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS DRAINAGE Drainage within and surrounding the airport is generally to the west-southwest toward the North Fork Payette River. Within the airport, the drainage system uses a number of detention basins, swales, ditches and culverts to collect the stormwater runoff and convey it to drainage channels west of the airport. This project will affect the drainage conditions along the east side of the airport. No drainage conditions west of the existing east parallel taxiway will be impacted by this project. Most of the area north of Taxiway A-2 and east of the parallel taxiway, including the aircraft parking apron at the north end of the airport, drains into a large triangular detention basin located east of the parallel taxiway and north of connecting Taxiway A-2. This basin also serves as a snow storage basin during the winter months. Runoff from the hangar area is collected in catch basins and swales and conveyed to a ditch located west of the hangars and an intermittent stream that runs just south of the hangars. The fields south of the hangar area are irrigated by a series of ditches fed by the Stringer Ditch Irrigation Canal. The excess irrigation water is collected in a ditch that runs along the east taxiway. All stormwater runoff and irrigation water is conveyed across the airport's airfield through a number of culverts and drains into the North Fork Payette River. LIGHTING, SIGNING, AND NAVAIDS Runway 16-34: Runway 16-34 is currently lighted with a system of Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL) with Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL). The system is on from dusk to dawn. Runway pavement markings consist of non -precision markings. Taxiways: The taxiways on the airfield are currently unlit; however, reflectors have been installed. NAVAIDS: Runway 16 currently has a 2 -light Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) sited on the left of the runway with a 3° aiming angle. Runway 34 has a 2 -box VASI on the left with a 3° aiming angle. Both runway ends have Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL). The airport also has a windsock and segmented circles. Existing Conditions 2-2 -n a McCALL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT co I DRAINAGE SITE PLAN c `a CITY OF MCCALL, IDAHO N PROJECT NUMBERDRAWING FILE NAME 034256 I 034256 -REPORT -OVERALL 1 SHEETWFO 1 REVISIONS 1 DESIGNED — NO. BY DATE REMARKS 1 DRAWN ARH 1 CHECKED — IAPPROVED — LAST EOR 2!272009 SCALE PLOT DATE 2272009 1" = 250' suBMITTAL A3p, WHPacifii 3501 W Elder Street, SUM 200 Balsa, ID 83705 208342.5400 Fax 208342-5353 www.whp"dlc.com Section 3 DESIGN STANDARDS CONFORMANCE WITH FAA STANDARDS All proposed improvements are designed in accordance with FAA Airport Design Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, latest edition. The current Airport Layout Plan (ALP) classifies McCall Municipal Airport with a current Airport Reference Code (ARC) of B-H and a future ARC of C -II. However, the ALP recommends a future runway/taxiway separation of 400 feet for the east side parallel taxiway. Table 3-1 defines pertinent dimensional standards used in design to meet the ARC B -II, C -II, and C -III classifications. Table 3-1 AIRPORT DESIGN CRITERIA RUNWAY SEPARATION Visual Runways and Approach Visibility Min. — not Runway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway Centerline Runway Centerline to Parallel Taxilane Centerline Runway Centerline to Holdline Runway Centerline to Aircraft Parking (Reference: FAA AC 150/5300-13 — Tables 2-1 & 2-2) TAXIWAY SEPARATION Taxiway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway Centerline Taxiway Centerline to Parallel Taxilane Centerline Taxiway Centerline to Fixed or Moveable Object Taxilane Centerline to Fixed or Moveable Object (Reference: FAA AC 150/5300-13 - Table 2-3) RUNWAY DESIGN Existins Runway Width 75 ft. Runway Longitudinal Grades <1% Runway Transverse Grades 1 - 1.5% Runway Shoulder Width 10 ft. Runway Shoulder Grade 1 - 5% Runway Safety Area Width 150 ft. Runway Safety Area Transverse Grade 1.5% - none Runway Object Free Area Width 500 ft. (Reference: FAA AC 150/5300-13 — Tables 3-1 & 3-3; Figures 5-3 & 5-4) Existine B -II lower than % statute mile 200 ft. N/A 144-175 ft. 300 ft. Existine 167 ft. 247 ft. 108 ft. 58.5 ft. 240 ft. 240 ft. 200 ft. 250 ft. GROUP II 105 ft. 105 ft. 65.5 ft. 57.5 ft. TAXIWAY DESIGN Taxiway Width Taxiway Shoulder Width Taxiway Safety Area Width Taxiway Object Free Area Width Taxilane Object Free Area Width Radius of Taxiway Turn Length of lead-in to Fillet Fillet Radius for Tracking Centerline (Reference: FAA AC 150/5300-13 - Tables 4-1 & 4-2) B -II 75 ft. 0 - 2% 1 - 2% 10 ft. 3 - 5% 150 ft. 1.5-5% 500 ft. Existine GROUP II 50 ft. 35 ft. lO ft. lO ft. 49 ft. 79 ft. 89 ft. 131 ft. 79 ft. 115 ft. varies 75 ft. Oft. 50 ft. varies 55 ft. Design Standards 3-1 C -II C -III 300 ft. 300 ft. 250 ft. 400 ft. C -II 100 ft. 0 - 1.5% 1 - 1.5% 10 ft. 1.5 - 5% 500 ft 1.5 - 3% 800 ft 400 ft. 400 ft. 250 ft. 500 ft. GROUP III 152 ft. 152 ft. 93 ft. 81 ft. C -III 100 ft. 0 - 1.5% 1 - 1.5% 20 ft. 1.5-5% 500 ft. 1.5-3% 800 ft. GROUP III 50 ft. 20 ft. 118 ft. 186 ft. 162 ft. 100 ft. 150 ft. 55 ft. Section 3 DESIGN STANDARDS TAXIWAY SURFACE GRADIENT CAT. B CAT. C Max. Longitudinal Grade 2% 1.5% Max. Grade Change 3% 3% Min. Length of Vertical Curves (per 1% grade change) 100' 100' Max. Elev. Diff. - Runway/Taxiway Points (x min. dist.) 1.5% 1.5% Transverse Grade 1 - 2% 1 - 1.5% Shoulder Grade 3 - 5% 1.5 - 5% Safety Area Transverse Grade 1.5 - 5% 1.5 - 3% (Reference: FAA AC 150/5300-13 Chapter 5) PAVEMENT MARKINGS The 2007 Airport Layout Plan classifies the current and future approach types for Runway 16-34 to be Non -Precision. No changes will be made to the runway, except as impacted by the changes to the connecting taxiways. The taxiway centerlines, radius lines, and holdlines will be updated as necessary with this project to meet current standards. PAVEMENT Airport Pavement Design Prepared in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-6D, Section 2 — Flexible Pavement Design Design Criteria: Subgrade Soil Type (USCS): GP or GM Airport Reference Code: B -II FAA Frost Group: FG -2 Design Strength: 110,000 lbs. Design CBR: 5.0 Source: Airport Layout Plan ( 2007) Source: Kleinfelder Geotechnical Report Pavement thickness Determination: The pavement section was determined using the dual wheel gear chart in Figure 3-3 of AC 150/5320-6D. Using a CBR of 5, the total pavement section thickness from the chart is 27 inches. The next step is the determination of the total depth of surfacing and base course. This is done by using the chart in Figure 3-3, but modifying the CBR input to 20. The surfacing and base course thickness is 11 inches. The chart requires a minimum of 4 inches for the surface course, leaving 7 inches for base course. Due to the dual wheel designation, Table 3-4 of the same AC requires a minimum base course thickness of 8 inches. Paragraph 320 in the AC requires this base to be a stabilized base to accommodate aircraft weighing 100,000 pounds or more. Design Standards 3-2 Section 3 DESIGN STANDARDS The remaining thickness is taken up in the subbase course. The final pavement section is shown below: Bituminous Surface Course: 4" (P-401) Stabilized Base Course: 8" (P-304) Subbase Course: 15" (P-154) Total Pavement Section 27" GRADING AND DRAINAGE The safety and object free areas of the airport will be graded to meet the design standards listed in Table 3-1. Below is a table that outlines the amount of impervious surface that will be constructed with this project, per alternate. For each alternative, the amount of impervious surface area will decrease with the new construction primarily due to the narrower widths required for the new parallel taxiway and connector taxiways. Table 3-4 TAXIWAY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SUMMARY Existing New Change sf acre sf acre sf acre ALT 2 301,410 6.92 259,937 5.97 -41,473 -0.95 ALT 3 338,825 7.78 270,437 6.21 -68,388 -1.57 ALT 4 446,200 10.24 416,961 9.57 -29,239 -0.67 The existing detention pond located just east of the parallel taxiway and north of connecting Taxiway A-2 will have to be re -shaped to accommodate each alternative. A new ditch will be required east of the parallel taxiway along the south half of the project to intercept the irrigation and stormwater runoff from the adjacent fields and culverts crossing the airfield will be extended to the east side of the new taxiway. Design Standards 3-3 Section 4 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES TAXIWAY RELOCATION OPTIONS The existing 50 -foot wide parallel taxiway centerline is 200 feet from the runway centerline, 40 feet short of the required separation based on the existing Airport Reference Code (ARC) designation of B -II. As previously stated, the Airport layout Plan (ALP) indicates a future ARC for the airport of C -II, which requires a centerline separation of 300 feet. However, the Master Plan recommends using a 400 -foot centerline separation, as required for Design Group III. The three taxiway relocation design alternatives being considered in this design report include relocating the east parallel taxiway to provide centerline separations from the runway of 240 feet, 300 feet, and 400 feet. Each alternative impacts existing wetlands as identified in the Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters report. The impacted wetlands areas are shown in the Preliminary Construction Plans (Appendix 5). Wetlands mitigation costs assume off-site mitigation at a 2:1 mitigation rate. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that a No -Action Alternative be evaluated with the design alternatives. The four alternatives are outlined as follows: ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION Description This alternative provides no change to the current taxiways. Advantages • No property acquisition. • No environmental impacts. Disadvantages • Airport does not meet FAA standards. • Potential safety issues. Summary of Costs Construction Costs: Parallel Taxiway Relocation* Wetlands Mitigation Property Acquisition Subtotal Contingency (25%) Construction Cost Subtotal Engineering and Inspection (30% of Taxiway Relocation & 25% Contingency) City of McCall Administration Total Estimated Cost Design Alternatives 4-1 $ 654,000 $0 $0 $ 654,000 $ 163,500 $ 817,500 $ 245,250 $10,000 $ 1,072,750 Section 4 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES * Costs associated with the No -Build option are pavement maintenance operations (overlay, crack sealing, fog sealing, etc.) that would be required over 20 years. ALTERNATIVE 2: TAXIWAY RELOCATION TO 240 -FOOT SEPARATION Description The existing parallel taxiway will be removed and relocated to provide the FAA standard runway -taxiway separation of 240 feet for the current ARC designation of B -II. The taxiway will be constructed to a width of 35 feet consistent with the standards for B -II. The connector taxiways will be reconstructed to a width of 35 feet and extended to the new parallel taxiway. Advantages • Lowest cost alternative. • Brings airport into compliance with FAA standards for current ARC of B -LE. Disadvantages • Does not meet FAA standards for future ARC of C -II. • Environmental mitigation is needed. • Impacts 0.968 acre of wetlands. • Requires acquisition of 0.61 acre of adjacent property. Summary of Costs Construction Costs: Parallel Taxiway Relocation Wetlands Mitigation Property Acquisition Subtotal Contingency (25%) Construction Cost Subtotal Engineering and Inspection (30% of Taxiway Relocation & 25% Contingency) City of McCall Administration Permitting Total Estimated Cost: $ 2,489,000 $ 116,160 $ 61,000 $ 2,666,160 $ 666,540 $ 3,332,700 $ 933,380 $25,000 $ 15,000 $ 4,306,080 ALTERNATIVE 3: TAXIWAY RELOCATION TO 300 -FOOT SEPARATION Description Design Alternatives 4-2 Section 4 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES The existing parallel taxiway will be removed and relocated to provide the FAA standard runway -taxiway separation of 300 feet for the future ARC designation of C -II. The taxiway will be constructed to a width of 35 feet consistent with the standards for C -II. The connector taxiways will be reconstructed to a width of 35 feet and extended to the new parallel taxiway. Advantages • Meets FAA standards for future ARC as cited in Master Plan. Disadvantages • Property acquisition required. • Environmental mitigation is needed. • Impacts 1.388 acres of wetlands. • Requires acquisition of 4.98 acres of adjacent property. Summary of Costs Construction Costs: Parallel Taxiway Relocation Wetlands Mitigation Property Acquisition Subtotal Contingency (25%) Construction Cost Subtotal Engineering and Inspection (30% of Taxiway Relocation & 25% Contingency) City of McCall Administration Permitting Total Estimated Cost: $ 2,759,500 $ 166,560 $ 498,000 $ 3,424,060 $ 856,015 $ 4,280,075 $ 1,034,820 $25,000 $ 15,000 $ 5,354,895 ALTERNATIVE 4: TAXIWAY RELOCATION TO 400 -FOOT SEPARATION Description The existing parallel taxiway will be removed and relocated to provide the FAA standard runway -taxiway separation of 400 feet for the Design Group III as recommended in the Master Plan. The taxiway will be constructed to a width of 35 feet consistent with the standards for Design Group II. The connector taxiways will be reconstructed to a width of 35 feet and extended to the new parallel taxiway. Design Alternatives 4-3 Section 4 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Advantages • Runway -Taxiway separation to meet FAA Design Group III, as recommended in current Master Plan. • Least wetlands impact. Disadvantages • Property acquisition required. • Environmental mitigation is needed. • Impacts 0.300 acre of wetlands. • Requires acquisition of 13.54 acres of adjacent property. Summary of Costs Construction Costs: Parallel Taxiway Relocation $ 3,244,400 _ 1 Wetlands Mitigation $ 36,000 Property Acquisition $ 1,354,000 Subtotal $ 4,634,400 Contingency (25%) $ 1.158,600 Construction Cost Subtotal $ 5,793,000 Engineering and Inspection $ 1,216,650 (30% of Taxiway Relocation & 25% Contingency) City of McCall Administration $25,000 Permitting $15.000 Total Estimated Cost: $ 7,049,650 Design Alternatives 4-4 Section 5 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE The preliminary engineer's cost estimate is based on our understanding of the proposed work and historical information for similar work. Table 5-1 COST SUMMARY Runway/Taxiway Centerline Separation Construction Costs Parallel Taxiway Relocation Wetlands Mitigation Property Acquisition Subtotal Contingency (25%): Subtotal Construction Engineering & Inspection Design (15%) Inspection (15%) Subtotal Engineering/Inspection Administration City of McCall Permitting Subtotal Administration Total estimated project cost Potential Funds FAA Funds (95%) Idaho Div. of Aeronautics Funds (2.5%) City of McCall Funds (2.5%) Total project funds ALT 2 240' $ 2,489,000 $ 116,160 $ 61,000 $ 2,666,160 $ 666,540 $ 3,332,700 $ 466,690 $ 466.690 $ 933,380 $ 25,000 $ 15,000 $ 40,000 $ 4,306,080 $ 4,090,776 $ 107,652 $ 107.652 $ 4,306,080 See Appendix 2 for the Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate. Preliminary Cost Estimate 5-1 ALT 3 300' ALT 4 400' $ 2,759,500 $ 3,244,400 $ 165,560 $ 36,000 $ 498,000 $ 1,354,000 $ 3,424,060 $ 4,634,400 $ 856,015 $ 1,158,600 $ 4,280,075 $ 5,793,000 $ 517,410 $ 608,325 $ 517,410 $ 608,325 $ 1,034,820 $ 1,216,650 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 15.000 $ 15,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 5,354,895 $ 7,049,650 $ 5,087,145 $ 6,697,160 $ 133,875 $ 176,245 $ 133,875 $ 176,245 $ 5,354,895 $ 7,049,650 Section 6 GENERAL PROJECT SCHEDULE A project schedule has not been developed as of this time. However, a preliminary construction duration has been estimated. The airport construction projects are projected to have a construction time of 3-6 months, depending on phasing and how much of the project is built at one time. The airport construction project times does not drastically change from one alternative to the next. Project Schedule 6-1 Section 7 GENERAL SAFETY The McCall Airport manager and engineering representative will monitor construction and set the safety standards for the project. Safety considerations will be covered in the contract documents. The project schedule and specifications will detail all coordination and safety items necessary for safe operations during construction, including issuance of NOTAMs and closures. The pre -construction conference will cover construction safety issues and coordination during the project. PLANNED CLOSURES The entire construction period is estimated to be 3-6 months. The runway can remain open through most of the construction period. SAFETY GUIDELINES Advisory Circular 150/5370-2E, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction" and Order NM 5200.3 "Safety Requirements on Airports During Construction and Maintenance Activities" will be discussed at the pre -construction conference All work will be performed under OSHA guidelines, including lock -out procedures for construction and electrical equipment. VEHICLE MARKING All construction vehicles are required to have flashing lights or orange and white flags while operating on the airport. All vehicles higher than 15 feet are required to have flags. Advisory Circular 150/5210-5C, "Painting, Marking and Lighting of Vehicles used on Airports" will be discussed at the pre -construction conference. TRAFFIC CONTROL All construction activities will be coordinated with airport personnel. The contractor will be required to have radios and to control vehicles to defined haul routes and access points. NAVIGATION INSTRUMENTS The PAPIs and VASIs will be operational during construction except when the runway needs to be closed for work within the safety area on connecting taxiways. Safety 7-1 Appendix 1: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (-- KLEINFELDER Bright People. tight Solutions. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROPOSED EXPANSION MCCALL AIRPORT MCCALL, IDAHO For: WH Pacific, Inc. 3501 W. Elder Street, Suite 200 Boise, Idaho 83705 Attention: Mr. Jason Ritchie By: Kleinfelder 2315 S. Cobalt Point Way Meridian, Idaho 83642 Kleinfelder Project No: 98880 December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED. 98880/B018R093 Page i of iii December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder (KLEUVFELDER anght Peopk. Right Sealant Prepared for: WH Pacific, Inc. 3501 W. Elder Street, Suite 200 Boise, Idaho 83705 Attention: Mr. Jason Ritchie, Project Manager Kleinfelder Job No. 98880 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROPOSED EXPANSION MCCALL AIRPORT MCCALL, IDAHO Prepared by: Seth P. Qin Staff Engineer <4; Geotechnical Engineer" ?f Brian Marker, P.E. Kleinfelder 2315 South Cobalt Point Way Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 893-9700 December 1, 2008 98880/13018R093 Page ii of iii December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder 6-(LEINFELDER Bright People. Right Solutions TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 2.0 METHODS OF STUDY 2 2.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION 2 2.2 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 2 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 4 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS 4 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4 3.2.1 Soil 4 3.2.2 Groundwater 4 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 4.1 SUBGRADE SOIL SUPPORT 6 4.2 SLOPE DESIGN 6 4.3 DRAINAGE 6 5.0 CLOSURE 8 5.1 LIMITATIONS 8 APPENDICES A Figures B Logs of Exploration C Laboratory Results 98880/B018R093 Page iii of iii December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER aright People. Right Solutio., 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation performed for the proposed taxiway at the McCall Airport, located in McCall, Idaho. The general location of the project is indicated on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 (Appendix A). In general, the purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the characteristics and engineering properties of the subsurface soils and to provide preliminary recommendations for drainage, permanent slopes, and to provide CBR values appropriate for the subgrade soils for the support of pavements. The investigation included subsurface exploration, representative soil sampling, field and laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. Authorization to perform this geotechnical investigation was provided by WH Pacific, Inc. and was conducted in accordance with the scope of services outlined in our proposal dated June 6, 2008. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject area is located at the McCall Airport in McCall, Idaho. We understand the project involves expanding the existing runway facility to include a taxiway running parallel and just east of the existing runway. In addition, we understand three parallel alignments, extending east from the runway, are being considered for the proposed expansion. The proposed taxiways are shown on the Test Pit Location Map, Figure 2 (Appendix A). The existing elevations at the site range from approximately 5020 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the north end of the runway to approximately 5000 feet above MSL at the south end of the runway. We understand no significant (>5 ft) cuts or fills are anticipated as a part of the proposed taxiway expansion. 98880/B018R093 Page 1 of 10 December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder KLE/NFELDER Bright People. tight Solutions 2.0 METHODS OF STUDY 2.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION The subsurface soil conditions at the proposed site were explored by excavating 14 test pits. These test pits were excavated and sampled on November 12, 2008. The test pits were located along the alignments of the three taxiway alternatives, as shown on Figure 2 in Appendix A, to a depth of 8 feet to 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Subsurface conditions, as encountered in the test pits, were recorded at the time of excavation by our field engineer and are presented on the logs enclosed in Appendix B. A field engineer from our firm observed the test pits, logged the subsurface conditions, and collected representative soil samples. Soil samples recovered were identified, described, and classified in the field using ASTM D 2488 (Unified Soil Classification System) as a guide. All samples were sealed to reduce moisture Toss and transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing, as deemed necessary. After the test pits were completed, the test pits were backfilled with the excavated material. 2.2 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION Representative samples were tested in our laboratory to evaluate the pertinent engineering properties of the soils. Test procedures were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM test procedures identified below ("General accordance" means that certain local and common descriptive practices and methodologies have been followed): • ASTM D 2488 — Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual - Manual Procedure). • ASTM C 136 — Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. • ASTM D 4318 — Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. • ASTM D 2216 — Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass. • ASTM D 1557 — Standard Test Method for Laboratory -Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort. • ASTM D 1883 — Standard Test Method for CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory Compacted Soils. 98880/B018R093 Page 2 of 10 December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder KLE/NFELDER Bright People. Right Sa!uoons. Grain size distribution and Atterberg Limits analyses were performed on selected samples to aid in classification of the soils. The results of laboratory tests are presented on the test pit Togs, and are enclosed in Appendix C. 98880/BO18R093 Page 3 of 10 December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER People, Right Solutions. 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed taxiway expansion area is located parallel and east of the existing runway. Existing hangars and various airport facilities are located east of the northern end of the project area, with business and industrial buildings to the north and west. The southern end of the project area is surrounded by vacant property currently being used for agricultural purposes. The existing ground surface slopes from the north I- (approximate elevation 5020) to the south (approximate elevation 5000) with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet. The existing ground surface, where not developed as part of the current airport system, is predominately covered with wild grasses. In addition, according to the drawing titled Preliminary Wetlands East Airport Property by Secesh Engineering, Inc. plotted on 11/4/2008, existing wetlands are located along the eastern edge of the southern portion of the project area. The mapped wetlands were also observed during our field evaluation. 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.2.1 SOIL Based on our test pits and observations, the near surface soil predominantly consisted of 4 inches to 12 inches of topsoil overlying poorly graded gravel and sand (GP, SP) with varying amounts of silt. These soils extended to 10 feet below the existing ground surface and the relative density was generally medium dense to dense. In TP -14, and TP -8, however, clayey sand with gravel (SC) was encountered from between 0.5 and 1.5 feet to 3 feet below the existing ground surface. In general, an increase in fine grained soils was observed in the southern portion of the project area. 3.2.2 GROUNDWATER Groundwater was observed in 5 of the 14 test pits during our field evaluation. The depth to groundwater as encountered at the time of the test pit excavations is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER Test Pit Number Groundwater Depth (feet) TP -4 5.5 TP -5 4.0 TP -9 4.5 TP -13 5.5 TP -14 5.5 98880/B018R093 Page 4 of 10 December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder KLE/NFELDER Bright People. Right solutions The test pits where groundwater was observed are all located at the southern portion of the project as shown in Figure 2 in appendix A. However, it should be noted that groundwater levels typically fluctuate, and may change in response to season, precipitation patterns, landscape irrigation practices, off-site construction activities, site utilization, or other factors. 98880/B018R093 Page 5 of 10 December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER aright People. Right' SaI4 n. 4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based on the field and laboratory testing performed on the site soils. The recommendations provided in this report are preliminary. Final recommendations should be provided when an alignment (vertical and horizontal) is chosen and should include subgrade preparation, structural fill and compaction, frost depth, excavation stability, and inclement weather construction. 4.1 SUBGRADE SOIL SUPPORT Four California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were performed as part of the investigation (shown in Appendix C). Two of the tests were performed on the native predominant sand and gravel from TP -2 and TP -3 and two tests were performed on the clayey sand material from TP -8 and TP -14. The soils from TP -2 and TP -3 classified as poorly graded gravel with sand (GP) and silty gravel with sand (GM), respectively. The laboratory CBR values for the predominant sand and gravel soils ranged from 21.7 to 56.1, while the clayey sand ranged from 3.8 to 11.5. Based on the laboratory test results, recommendations provided in the Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular No. 150/5320-6D, we recommend that a CBR value of 5.0 be used for the site soils. However, if the soils classified as clayey sand and/or lean clay are removed from the site during subgrade preparation, we recommend a CBR value of 27.0 be used for the site soils. 4.2 SLOPE DESIGN We recommend that all cut and fill slopes are designed with slopes of 2H:1V or flatter. We assume the fill slopes will consist of the native soils observed during our evaluation, excluding topsoil which should be removed during the earthwork operations of the project, or imported fill material. The cut and fill slopes are assumed to be less than 10 feet in height. 4.3 DRAINAGE All drainage ditches should have a minimum depth of 1 foot measured from the bottom of the ballast, and should maintain positive drainage. Embankment fills may impound natural drainage paths along the project, particularly in the southern portion of the project area. In order to reduce the potential for slope and pavement failures, drainage basins or pipes shall be required at all low points where the embankments impound potential water flow. Riprap shall be placed around drainage pipe outlets in order to prevent erosion near the toe of the embankments. Positive drainage shall be maintained to daylight away from the cut area for all cut slopes. Where drainage ditches are allowed to flow out of a cut and onto the downhill slope of the embankment, riprap should be used to prevent the erosion of the material near the cut/fill transition area. 98880/B018R093 Page 6 of 10 December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER Bright People. Right solutions. Site grading should be performed so that precipitation and runoff incident to the site will drain away from the pavement section. If collection points for precipitation and runoff are necessary, the collected runoff should not be allowed to flow directly from the taxiway to the cut or fill surfaces. All pavement runoff from collection points should be gathered in drainage ditches or pipes, which should then be drained away from the cut or fill slopes. Drainage channels should be concrete -lined or have geotextile riprap protection, and runoff should be discharged to prevent erosion at the toe of the embankment. As previously mentioned, all drain water outlets should have riprap protection, and should not be allowed to flow onto fill slopes. Where pipes do not daylight, pipe clean -outs should be installed to provide proper maintenance of the drainage pipes. Over time, drainage culverts and pipes can become obstructed with debris or soil. It is important that drainage pipes along the alignment continue to function adequately over the design life of the taxiway. 98880/B018R093 Page 7 of 10 December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder 1 KLE/NFELDER aright People. Right Solution. 5.0 CLOSURE 5.1 LIMITATIONS This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelder's profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided. Our conclusions, opinions and recommendations are based on a limited number of observations and data. It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the data evaluated. Kleinfelder makes no other representation, guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided. This report may be used only by the WH Pacific, Inc. and the registered design professional in responsible charge and only for the purposes stated for this specific engagement within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than two (2) years from the date of the report. The work performed was based on project information provided by WH Pacific, Inc. If WH Pacific, Inc. does not retain Kleinfelder to review any plans and specifications, including any revisions or modifications to the plans and specifications, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for the suitability of our recommendations. In addition, if there are any changes in the field to the plans and specifications, WH Pacific, Inc. must obtain written approval from Kleinfelder's engineer that such changes do not affect our recommendations. Failure to do so will vitiate Kleinfelder's recommendations. The scope of services was limited to 14 test pits as part of the field evaluation. It should be recognized that definition and evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions present due to the limitations of data from field studies. The conclusions of this assessment are based on the test pits performed, the groundwater observations, the results of laboratory test, and engineering analysis. Kleinfelder offers various levels of investigative and engineering services to suit the varying needs of different clients. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive studies yield more information, which may help understand and manage the level of risk. Since detailed study and analysis involves greater expense, our clients participate in determining levels of service, which provide information for their purposes at acceptable levels of risk. The client and key members of the design team should discuss the issues covered in this report with Kleinfelder, so that the issues are understood and applied in a manner consistent with the owner's budget, tolerance of risk and expectations for future performance and maintenance. Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. 98880/B018R093 Page 8 of 10 December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder 6:KLE/NFELDER Bnght People. Night Solo tiont It is possible that soil or groundwater conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil or groundwater conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, the client is responsible for ensuring that Kleinfelder is notified immediately so that we may reevaluate the recommendations of this report. If the scope of the proposed construction changes from that described in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing, by Kleinfelder. As the geotechnical engineering firm that performed the geotechnical evaluation for this project, Kleinfelder should be retained to confirm that the recommendations of this report are properly incorporated in the design of this project, and properly implemented during construction. This may avoid misinterpretation of the information by other parties and will allow us to review and modify our recommendations if variations in the soil conditions are encountered. As a minimum Kleinfelder should be retained to provide the following continuing services for the project: • Review the project plans and specifications, including any revisions or modifications; • Observe and evaluate the site earthwork operations to confirm subgrade soils are suitable for construction of pavements and placement of fill; • Confirm fill for the pavements is placed and compacted per the project specifications; Kleinfelder cannot be responsible for interpretation by others of this report or the conditions encountered in the field. The scope of services for this subsurface exploration and geotechnical report did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site. Kleinfelder cannot be responsible for interpretation by others of this report or the conditions encountered in the field. Kleinfelder must be retained so that all geotechnical aspects of construction will be monitored on a full-time basis by a representative from Kleinfelder, including site preparation, and placement of the pavement sections. These services provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the actual soil and groundwater conditions encountered during construction and to evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the site conditions. If Kleinfelder is not retained to provide these services, we will assume no responsibility for any potential claim during or after construction on this project. If changed site conditions affect the recommendations presented herein, Kleinfelder must also be retained to perform a supplemental evaluation and to issue a revision to our original report. 98880/B018R093 Page 9 of 10 December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder KLE/NFELOER aright People. Right Solutions This report, and any future addenda or reports regarding this site, may be made available to bidders to supply them with only the data contained in the report regarding subsurface conditions and laboratory test results at the point and time noted. Bidders may not rely on interpretations, opinion, recommendations, or conclusions contained in the report. Because of the limited nature of any subsurface study, the contractor may encounter conditions during construction which differ from those presented in this report. In such event, the contractor should promptly notify the owner so that Kleinfelder's geotechnical engineer can be contacted to confirm those conditions. We recommend the contractor describe the nature and extent of the differing conditions in writing and that the construction contract include provisions for dealing with differing conditions. Contingency funds should be reserved for potential problems during earthwork and pavement construction. Furthermore, the contractor should be prepared to handle contamination conditions encountered at this site, which may affect the excavation, removal, or disposal of soil; dewatering of excavations; and health and safety of workers. 98880/B018R093 Page 10 of 10 December 1, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfeider KLE/NFELDER Bright People. Night Solaria:. APPENDIX A Figures if ••t -+r`'- i '.1.• ./ j��,-: .. ;ri• • .'t r • • e • } }• � • x1111 • r _ ■ • • I ijw i7!:' • ��°• . V flail,1;1....1111.14.-41 • 1 j •TO f 1•......- ii _•a'•� J #Iy:1�R'��.-iw•• ■:MO 31�1ti,• ,rl• •` 1—.��.: 1 , ,o '.I / ;I ' , I sa.Yll • 1 • L ..moi �� I • , / '•- I 1•. I - .94 -I • 11m ',741• '41 •.•: .•. `` - •i Cai�.---I '11. Ni Crl 1 I 11 I • ••raf' ..... .AFL; - \k .II ..II, MI --'ic Ile '. 'F +' :4... - - -1\7 _ •,_'��d — r t ..?.. e I + ae i 1 I�� 1 •,I Ill r; ,p r*.,.., a *[ \;y 41.11 1 of •.-0-11.—s-ir:k77'. -- � �, ', . II . ;' 11 • t F ra• fl r e :I'y spia SIS f' ,, ..'� Mc-Ca1Yl. ',- .. __• . • 1 • 3:J,:ftf t ( -4181 r i f / el '--T44..14 ' ,Ir 7 // ,1 ill/ i r I;:• 1II 1,,41 i ~ II �.. r1t311I10/1;e11174.41:• Al RI-' 1 x' 0 A LL i ,ORTI t � �� ..� — .� �.,• r�— 44y..-�-ate._ . vi / ' rf 1,•] — 1 4 1 Ali = r . .. , :'�r�trf ' r 4'ac `F I rt I, i' I rl t = Ot5lir44Y Pit BM 51.34 y I, I,'_ ill r,, 1 Borrow ,0",,, 1 1 `IP,.Ft b` r" -- i� II f ^` ati• 99 ~ 1 •I 4 — APPROXIMATE PROJECT ' r LOCATION SOURCE:1:24000 SCALE QUADRANGLE MAPS McCALL, IDAHO 2003 TM Mora,. vd,se2 M t`lt ;arc R,eterj j;,n ru> teen tomato fun . ['anti, twiect .0 1, .$jta b e'urv,t a?W rap. 1144chc. 1,43 ro rri.e 4.urz, a .d,Q.r.t .44M411,1dd. pito •tctsaly. fnrrftemtc brraratt, n rlirl%lI3Mw pl• tJ tech Poan.•na T•dl 014-na4 h rol 14.n...1 la ,ns •1 o 4,4 ttrxr, 44:41 rot h f d,t;+ad a 1•ttadal et a tantln^tY, Calyx dr(tntcl. TM vta u taunt t1 ra t••rm+M1m rdrts N to Ith ;cork rc/idK+,ea he ott eh it. st no ran, .4t44 e.tuth7 V'4 t h.mtxn 17.11-m"%\ (KLE/NFELDER Bright People Right Solutions, www,klcinfeldor.com 0 Approximate Scale in Miles. PROJECT NO, 08880 DRAWN: NOV 2008 DRAWN BY: CE CHECKED BY: BM FILE NAME: 0.5 APPROXIMATE SITE JI LOCATION VICINITY MAP McCaII Airport 336 Delnhard Lone McCall, Idaho 83638 Figure z v Al ` f��_ JJJ o I ------.7"'",d Hls;lays'-t�Sccr 1_ OD n. VISI W- LAND USE` FUTURE 3.`i (TOWING rl.0 LII r RESTRICTION LIN E.XISI�i.0 25' BUILDING LSFS'Alq•1MRf32: AN0 �% r 1 ❑ OI l I-RE�'TRIUiAN UNE / Y IRL BRL BE? 1 BRli ` RL I ; ' MANE 'JUMPER -ARROW, DRG ,_/�- , �� 1 -1L --.---L, P�� PF- CFA P/L B F. _- __�`'L�=OFA I 1 RF�t. OF '• 7 wr0 11 1.. !-•-•.'• =C.O L.� '..:.5"=OF.\ a r/ ,: �. .x x I i I"(�p/I FARRARrAR6AR ACCESS TAxmnY P/L .. ,::.1 .-,, P/L .r-- /1¢�� I �I'�_ %p%Jn`-- '�"' F R., ' f ' F RSA .. F'—♦ -RSI. _. F 'l5.\ �... R�7aA .-- _ _ ___ - .•� '-RSA-�- )FZ r^ �y- Of ? - OFZ (I OF'Z FZ (�- r • �J RIIhYl.1"�. ULi lb'i.iC RUNWAY 34 FUTURE I I RUNWAY 7.1 LXISTING HA ,� ro. xL 'U1 ELEVATION: 5009.0` ?l7% EU /50100 5U7U.O�) ( SIO•--',�T,--FAC • I.I - - F JA TU% F_LEY;.T70N: 5(112.;1 m I ` 2 r-R.�n •i_ _BMW. _ i. �/� r� AS-, _ RSA RC --�-. _I— FE/ \—`.EAI.STI'TfC'ACF- ' � 111 �R' L , �� 1J T�,{L. —,. i 5' 6 I -7 alr •^ t Am.^'7 4 -,4 .� - '1 �]-W:`S'�( SOG.i 175=—. _ ,— 'L „ _„_._.:—_ �- _,. 6)0&i;i l �- -4 ,400- ,AI RSA NY, 20J , , .11; n+ ..0 vc P'10 - 35' 2A0' 300' 403' )G�.. 35 ^`� •• :T::� • s -v - _ S_ 500 0' �S G CIR . II T' s. T I 3 `i 700 2q 35Y -.SEGMENT A'ENTED CLE ,' _ ':"4‘''''''.1 � :purl 1-'1'A-"'�.-_� �I� I ^-T•-,,,, �.t-..-. _m..�-_ 1 . �a ^ '.e 'n �I _,-.-1-32412:.- /d am --grr -ice- •(--, __ 4Texta ��. a =-7- " -s-=afro/ a 1. _ _ ... ti' 47,11.::. fglil.l� :-,-'4. _ - 1 _ _ .. Lg% -- .1--L- S -C 1-.'C NOR n 1"h r -_ lF tt^ C �y;� w�s . APRON MEM/ RUNY+AY ENpp�� TP -0 fiFLlL'�J - j. -{-Ci - G 71212-1,,,..4, ./ may- /-�'� _ E �-,• IRL ,'�•S _cuvroc 10 ^1'106.? L4_.hu+G - I ,IRL-- -,--.-- II OF . l_Lli3OI ►' WI.B' {_ I DRL`"I I I ,-. /+ {' Lh 500 FT.'L,L7t1511NG 25' UUILOuiC - I 'T --t — f I 'TI y 3A E AND rU111RE LOW POI`l1) I *\ 0 0 5 0 010 0 014 LINE I f h F F V• () t Q V D TtNrnxl' I i hir', {I hi WcuOs = /'f . wcE. UV > 1 ILllf !!;0 =Y of .IP4'+ h F L• / - �':fF.Ai HER 'OUSERvnnOu. _ ---w 1 y �,y' Ava"�rr STATION (AS;S)(E) I __ _ _.--s>.*"?.." i tia r 'p11-' LO'� ® P' a �.- - -. •� - wG� Fi F� F;'l. I Fi ii :1--'''' _SA01 _"< PAFxI1W / r ® �17i /_______•.ip,(� FFFIF-'4 1{ I�^�f .\Gl: `-� , MANGART$HiL s '�}I ` P l ] 1I __ - f� 1:•s- ms.•:r'I'._1.;:` •....i .eOIr_ G. V C.A. 10/1CAR AEVELOPMENT AREA 015 ACRE 00 ACRE H 10(010? MINIM N 000000RY O 'I PRECISION '100'1.700' Legend TP -10 SApproximate Test,Plt-Locetion way`s wro4.w .IIB u.. mow' offal,. F00 COMPLEX *10 ACRE FARMS ASSOCIATED 01/ T00 0R COMVERCYLL/C.I. 10 ACRE 1/d YENIELE ACCESS FUTURC 35' OIJILOING 81317,:CION USE FUTURE TERMINAL TERINN.L COMPLEX EXPANSION =5 010 ACRE ACRE AWAT NH SUPPOR//RENTAL ZAGS N1Y 03 ACRE FUTURE TERV.RUL SUPPORT 03 ACRE "1/r' SRE A: HA1NT. COMPLEX 13 ACRE (z) I CFIN 1. 1± TUEt TA . 98800 ("7;4\PROJECT 1 BRAWN:' NUNOV 2000 LE/NFELDER 'DRAWN BY: GE W V- People. night Solutions. FLE NAM E: BM FILE NAME: ww.kldnT.WarsOm TEST PIT LOCATION MAP McCall Atrpml 336 Oalnhard Lana McCall, ID 83038 Figure 2 (7-1---..\KLEINFELDER Bright People. Right Solution$. APPENDIX B Logs of Exploration PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCall, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Granite Excavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT: Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olsen DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)/DATE(S): None observed on 11-12-08 0 IY W' r C7 0 ;;;;;; Topsoil ♦Jr DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand (SP): Tan, moist, medium dense, medium to fine grained sand Silty Sand with Gravel (SM): Dark brown, moist, medium dense Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GP -GM): Brown, moist, dense, some cobbles Poorly Graded Sand (SP): Tan, moist, medium dense. medium grained, clean sand - Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): •!• • Tun, moist, dense, some cobbles 8 =1. !:.y ;' •"�. Test Pit Terminated at 9 ft. 10- 12- 14 TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -1 SHEET loft KLEINFELDER KLF PROJECT NO. 98880 REMARKS Stratification lines on this log are based on sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock. In-situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual. Lab Test Data ai 5 ft: Gravels = 52% Sand = 39% Fines = 9% Moisture Content = 10.0% Lab Test Data at 6 ft: Sand = 96% Gravels = 3% Fines= I% Moisture Content = 5.1 % PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCnll, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Granite Gxeavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT; Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olsen DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)/DATE(S): None Observed on 1 1-12-08 0 U u 0 J ! J J ! ! Ivy .644 :4 ::;; .• •• .al• 4. 12- 14 - DESCRIPTION Topsoil Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Brown, moist, dense, coarse grained sand Test Pit Terminated at 10 ft. TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -2 SHEET 1 of 1 KLE/NFELDER KLF PROJECT NO, 98880 REMARKS •Stratification lines on this log are based on sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock. In-situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual. Lab Test Data at 1.5 ft: ,Gravels = 58% Sand = 40% Silt=2% Moisture Content = 4.9% Max DD = 136.2 pcf @ 9,0% moisture CBR=56.1 PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCall, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: granite Excavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT: Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olsen DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)/DATE(S): None observed on 11-12-08 0 ; GRAPHIC SYMBOL DESCRIPTION Topsoil Silty Gravel with Sand (GM): Moist, line to coarse grained sand and gravel, dense. 2 Ztii.X1: • Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Brown, dense, with cobbles up to 12". A*" %:: P. ... 4 7:0 • I. F! Ai Poorly Graded Sand with Grayd (SP): Tan, medium dense, coarse grained sand. 8— • 1 0 - • 12- 14 Test Pit Terminated at 10 ft. TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -3 SHEET l of KLEINFELDER KLF PROJECT NO. 9 880 REMARKS Stratification lines on this log are based on sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock. In-situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual. Lab Tcst Data at 1.5 ft: Gravels = 44% Sand = 43% Fines = 13% , Moisture Content = 12,5% Max DD = 126.4 pcf @ 11.3% moisture GM= 21.7 Lab Tcst Data at 6 ft: Sand = 76% Gravels = 22% nes = 2% Moisture Content = 5.2% PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCall, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Granite Excavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT: Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olsen DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)IDATE(S): Observed at 5.5 feet on 11-12-08 O 2 0 - , Topsoil 4J.1JY JJ JJ J+ 10- 12=- 1d— DESCRIPTION Silty Sand with Gravel (SM): Brown orange, moist, medium dense. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Tan, moist to wet, dense, occasional cobbles. Test Pit Tcinninatcd at 9 feet. TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -4 SHEET 1 of 1 KLE/NFELDER KLF PROJECT NO. 98880 REMARKS Stratification lines on this log are based on sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock. In-situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual. PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCall, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Granite Excavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT: Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olsen DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)/DATE(S): Observed at 4 feet on 11-12-08 ca .11 0 0 2 J4 444v 4.14444 •/JJJJ. J Ja' ••i :s . •i o.o, • �► gra . • 1•• :40 " • • I.;O M! • 12— 14— DESCRIPTION Topsoil Silty Sand (SM): Gray, moist, stiff, licit() low plasticity. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Brown to gray, moist to wet, dense, some cobbles. Note: no cobbles below 5 ft. 'fest Pit Terminated at 10 ft. TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -5 SHEET l of 1 1 KLEINFELDER KLF PROJECT NO. 98880 REMARKS 'Stratification lines on this log are based on sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock, In=situ, the transition between soil tees may be gradual. Lab Test Daia at 2 ft: Siind: 67% Fines = 30% Gravels = 3% Moisture Content = 22.5% PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCall, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Granite Excavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT: Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olsen DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)IDATE(S): None observed on 11-12-08 1'0 12— DESCRIPTION TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -6 SHEET 1 of 1 KLEINFELDER KLP PROJECT NO. 98880 Topsoil Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel and Cobbles (SP): Broom, dense, cobbles up to 12", increase percent gravel with depth and some silt, Test Pit Terminated at 10 feet. REMARKS Stratification lines on this log are based on sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock. In-situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual, Lab Test Data at 4 ft: Sand = 36/0 Gravels = 32% Cobbles = 30% fines = I % Moisture Content = 3% PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCall, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Granite Excavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT: Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olsen DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)/DATE(S): None observed on 11-12-08. 1— W 0 Y ♦ ! v : .':: )a •s:;i.•;:., ;.j '1:+, : :41F' 12- 14— DESCRIPTION Topsoil Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles (GP): Brown orange, moist, dense, cobbles up to 12", some silt. Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP): Tan, moist, coarse grained sand, medium dense. Test Pit Terminated at 10 feet. TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -7 SHEET l of 1 KLE/NFELDER KLF PROJECT NO. 98880 REMARKS Stratification lines on this log are based on sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock. In-situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual. Lab Test Data at 5 ft: Gravels = 38% Sand = 30% Cobbles 29% Fines = 3% Moisture Content = 4% PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCall, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Granite Excavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT: Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olsen DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)/DATE(S): None observed on 11-12-08 0 .IJJ iJ /JJJ DESCRIPTION Topsoil Clayey Sand (SC): Brown, moist, some gravel, medium dense. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): ' •" : Brown, dense some cobbles and silt moist. ••iP •• 4— ::Ar; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP): ?; ?i : r Tan, moist to wct, medium dense. 8 -• ?t {i 10 • Test Pit Terminated at 10 feet, 12- 14— TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -8 SHEET l of 1 P ` KLE/NFELDER KLF PROJECT NO. 98880 REMARKS Stratification lines on this log are based on sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock. In-situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual. Lab Test Data at 2 ft: Sand =49% rimes =40% Gravels = 11% Moisture Content = 26.2% Max DD = 110.0 pet' @ 14.5% moisture CBR =3.8 1 PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCall, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTFIACTOR: Granite Excavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT: Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olsen DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)/DATE(S): Observed at 4.5 feel on -12-08, RIC SYMBOL LU ai 2-v; '44;1 • ;r." is: :Vie, 4 - : : 1. • g1*; • - : :.°.4 8 • • 10- 12- 14 — DESCRIPTION Topsoil Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP): Brown orange, moist, dense, some cobbles and silt, dense. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (G1): Tan, wet, dense, clean coarse grained sand. Test Pit Terminated at 8 feet. TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -9 SHEET 1 of 1 KLEINFELLJER KLF PROJECT NO. 98880 REMARKS Stratification lines on this log are based onsampling observations and represent rtpproximate boundaries between soil and 'Ma. In-situ, the transition between soil types May be gradual. Lub Test Data at 3 It: Gravels = 57% Sand = 41% fines = 2% Moisture Content = 7.8% PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCall, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Granite Excavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT: Backhoe LOGGED BY: S.Olscn DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)/DATE(S): None observed on 11-12-08 1.3 —4 tA DESCRIPTION ; Topsoil Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP -SM): - ; r Brown, dense, with cobbles and boulders up to 18, .• • :J;cr I 1; • rit.t ;Iva: e;) ' •t .41,40.1.Y; efiti 44t. ijrt,,w - „t4)14,4 Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP): . :0;14- ••.: 12- 14 - Tan, occasional cobbles up to 6". Test Pit Terminated at 10 feet. TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -10 SHEET 1 of 1 KLEINFELDER KLF PROJECT NO. 9880 REMARKS Stratification lines on this log are based an sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between.soil and rock. In-situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual, PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCall, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Granite Excavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT; Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olseti DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)/DATE(S): None observed on 11-12-08 a. A 0 0 4 .1 J J d r,rar�� DESCRIPTION Topsoil Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel and Cobbles (SP): Brown orange, moist, dense. 2 Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): ;� •IM Tan, moist, dense, clean sand and gravel, with cobbles a to 6". '.: P « . Y Si 4—•::w•re. • .44 ,'^Y 12- 14= Test Pit Terminated at 10 feet. TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -I 1 SHEET loft KL EINFEL ©ER KLF PROJECT NO. 98880 REMARKS Stratification lines on this log are based nn sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock. In-situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual. Lab Test Data at 1;5 ft: Sand=37% Gavels = 31% Cobbles = 27% Fines = 5% ,Moisture Content = 4.3%© PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCall, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Granite Excavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT: Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olsen DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)/DATE(S): None observed bit 11-12-08. 0 4—' • _ •': , : • fi• e • 10 ---14 • DESCRIPTION ,'topsoil Silty Sand with Gravel (SM): Brown, moist, medium dense. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -12 SHEET loft ( KLEINFELDER KLF PROJECT NO. 98880 :!;41:1 Tan, moist, dense, clean sand and gravels, with cobbles tip to 8". 12- 14— Test Pit Terminated at 10 feet. REMARKS Stratification lines on this log are based on sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock. In-situ, the transition between soil types may he gradual. PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McColl, ldnito EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Granite Excavation EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT: Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olsen DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)/DATE(S): Observed at 5.5' on 11-12-08. DESCRIPTION 0 fi a • ,,.,;;.n _ Topsoil -til; Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GP -GM): - Fit, .., Brown orange, moist, medium dense. g. rw -:! : Tan, moist to wet, dense, coarse grained sand. 1•,4'4. • ,;tiyti:: :4,q - ; : !:�. :-,yq. .•• 6:=1 iy. } :4+ ' • Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Test Pit Teniunated at 8 feet. 10- 12- 14— TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -13 SHEET loft KLEINFELDER KLF PROJECT NO. 98880 REMARKS Stratification lines on this log are baser.] on sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock. In-situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual, lab Test Data at 1 ft: Gravels = 51% Sand = 41% Fines = 890 Moisture Content = 9.4% -- • PROJECT: McCall Airport LOCATION: McCall, Idaho EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR: Granite EcavaUon EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT: Backhoe LOGGED BY: S. Olsen DATE OF EXCAVATION: 11-12-08 WATER LEVEL(S)/DATE(S): Observed at 5,5on 1142-08. "74 a. to Q 0 GRAPHIC SYMBOL DESCRIPTION Topsoil Silty Sand with Gravel (SM): Brown, moist, medium dense. 44, Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC): Gray, moist, medium dense, ' 0:0 • 4 • 12 — 14— Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Brown, moist to wet, dense, trace cobbles, coarse grained sand. Test Pit Terminated at 8 feet, TEST PIT LOG NO. TP -14 SHEET 1 of 1 KLEINFELDER KLF PROJECT NO. 98880 REMARKS Stratification lines on this log are based on sampling observations and represent approximate boundaries between soil and rock. In-situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual. Lab Test Data at 2 ft: Sand = 47% Fines ---: 32% GraVels = 21% Moisture Content = 22.1% PL = 20, LL = 32, PI = 12 Max DD = 115.7 pcf to 11.5% moisture CBR = 11:5 KLE/NFELDER Bright People. Right Solutions. APPENDIX C Laboratory Results 100 90 80 70 Particle Size Distribution Report 500 100 %COBBLES %GRAVEL SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 2 in. 748 1 in. 59.6 3/4 1n. 54.0 1/2 in. 51.8 3/8 in. 502 4t4 47.7 #10 43.4 #40 19.5 11100 10.7 1/200 8.5 0.1 GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND 39.2 0.01 0.001 %SILT 1 %CLAY 8.5 Soli Description Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand PL= D85= D30= 0.814 Cu= 205.27 uSCS= Atterbera Limits LL= P1= Coefficients D60= 25,9 D15= 0.286 Cc= 0.20 Classification AASHTO= Remarks Moisture Content: 10% D5b=. 9.19 Di 0= 0.126 (no specification provided) Sample NO:: 4793 Source of Sample: Date: 11/18/08 Location: TP•1 @ 5' Elev./Depth; 5' KLEINFELDER, INC. Client: WH Pacific Project: McCall Airport Project No: 98880 Figure 100 ; 90 $0 70 w 60 Z Z 50 tL U Cc 40 a. 30 — 20 10 6 _1 500 N 4 Particle Size Distribution Report 2 Z _4 E V m l m 0 y, 0 00 9 S g o a l E% COBBLES 100 10 % GRAVEL SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 1/2 in. 99.6 3/8 in. 98,5 414 97.3 1110 86.0 1140 12,7 41100 2.3 4200 0.9 * (no specification provided) Sample No.: 4794 Location: TP -1 C1 6' GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND 96.4 %SILT Soil Description Poorly Graded Sand PL= D85= 1.04 D30= 0.644 Cu= 2.9I uSCS= 0.01 0,001' % CLAY I 0.9 Atterbern Limits LL= PI= Coefficients D60= 1.12 D1g= 0.456 Cc= 0.96 Classification AASHTO= Remarks Moisture Content: 5.1% D50= 0.936 D10= 0.386 Source of Sample: Date: 11/18/08 Elev./Depth: 6' KLEINFELDER, INC. Client: WH Pacific Project: McCall Airport Project No: 98880 Figure PERCENT FINER 100 90 - g Particle Size Distribution Report ▪ F ▪ 1 H 8 7 8 — 1.7 1. 30 0 500 % COBBLES SIVE PERCENT SIZE FINER 3/4 in. 90.4 1/2 in. 86.8 3/8 in. 84.1 114 78.3 4110 67.3 4140 21.3 xt100 3.7 41200 2.0 (no specification provided) Sample No.: 4795 Location: TP -3 @ 6' 10 1 GRAIN SIZE - %GRAVEL I % SAND 76.3 SPEC.* PASS? PERCENT (X=NO) Source of Sample: KLEINFELDER, INC. mm 0.1 0.01 % SILT 1 % CLAY Soli Description Poorly.Gradcd Sand with Gravel PL. D85= 10.5 D30= 0.572 Cu= 5.84 u$CS= Moisture Content: Client: WIT Pacific Protect: McCall Airport Project No: 98880 Atterbera Limits LL= Coefficients D60= 1.48 D15= 0.328 Cc= 0.87 Classification AASHTO= Remarks 5.2% 2.0 PI= D50= 1:06 D10= 0.254 Date: 11/18/08 Elev./Depth: 6' Figure PERCENT FINER 100 90 • 80 • 70 Go 30 ••• 20 10 • - 500 Particle Size Distribution Report s 100 C !SO 552 10 % COBBLES % GRAVEL SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (*.NO) 1/2 in. 99.2 3/8 in. 98.3 114 96.9 4110 91.7 440 67.4 4100 37.8 4200 29.7 (no specification provided) Sample No.: 4796 Location: TP -5 @ 2' H i(.I GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND 67.2 Silty Sand 0.1 0.01 0.001 % SILT 1 % CLAY 29.7 Soil Description Atterberci Limits PL= LL. PI= Coefficients D85= 1,.05 D60= 0.330 D80= 0.0780 D15= CU= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Moisture Content: 22.5% D50 0.240 D1 o= Source of Sample: Date: 11/18/08 Elev.IDepth: 2' Client: WH Pacific KLE1NFELDER, INC. Project: McCall Airport Protect No: 98880 Figure PERCENT FINER 100 90 -= — 80 70 T • 60 50 ... 40 - 20 10-- 0 Particle Size Distribution Report o 0 o I § E a � n 500 100 10 1 la COBBLES /o GRAVEL o 30.7 o 31.9 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 3 in. 69.3 2 in. 69.3 1.5 in. 59.0 1 in. 51.0 3/4 in. 47.6 1/2 in. 41.9 318 in. 40.2 #4 37,4 #10 33.6 ,#40 7.7 #1100 1.5 #200 1.1 + (no specification provided) Samplt# No.: 4797 Location: TP -6 @ 4' GRAIN SIZE - mm %SAND 36.3 0.1 0.01 0.001 % SILT 1 % CLAY I 1.1 Soil Description Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel and Cobbles Atterbera Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D85= D60= 39,4 17)50= 233 DS0= 1.51 D15= 0.666 D10=-. 0.499 Cu= 78.90 Cc= 0.12 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Mositure Content: 3% Source of Sample: Date: 1 I/18/08 Elev./Depth: 4' Client: \VH Pacific K L E I N F E L D E R, INC„ Project: McCall Airport Project No: 98880 Figure PERCENT FINER 100 Particle Size Distribution Report fi 5 • e Q Q 2 ?..2§ 20 10 0 500 1 /o COBBLES /a GRAVEL 1 a 29.2 I o 37.7 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 3 in. 71.0 2 in. 65.2 1.5 in. 59.5 1 in. 54.9 3/4 in. 49.8 1/2 in. 42.5 3/8 in. 39.0 #4 33.1 4410 26.6 440 9.1 #100 3.6 41200 2.6 (no specification provided) Semple No.: 4798 Location: TP -7 @ 5' GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND 30.5 Source of Sample: Client: \VH Pacific Project: McCall Airport Project No: 98880 KLEINFELDER, INC. % SILT 0.01 2.6 Soil Descrlotlon Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles PL= 1385. D30= 3.04 Cu. 83.86 USCS= Atterbera Limits LL P I= Coefficients D60= 39.2 D15= 0.736 CC= 0.50 Classification AASHTO= Moisture Content: 4% Remarks 1 % CLAY D50= 19.2 D10= 0.468 Date: 11/18/08 Elev./Depth: 5' Figure PERCENT FINER 100 90—! 80 70 00 50 40 • 30 20 .S n Particle Size Distribution Report 0 LS 0 4 Mr 0 , l 500 100 10 %COBBLES % GRAVEL SIEVE PERCENT SPEC. PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 2 in. 87.9 1.5 in. 73.0 1 in. 68.2 3/4 in. 59,6 1/2 in. 52.4 3/8 in. 49.3 444 43.3 1410 35.1 440 10.0 4 100 3.5 41200 2.2 GRAIN SIZE - mm %SAND 41.1 0.1 0.01 0.001 %SILT I %CLAY 2.2 Soli Description Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand Atterbera Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D85= 48.5 DB0= 19.3 D30= 1,43 D15= 0,604 Cu= 45.43 CC= 0.25 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Moisture Content: 7.8% 050= 10.2 D10= 0.425 (no specification provided) Sample No.: 4799 Source of Sample: Date: 11/18/08 Location: TP -9 @ 3' Elev./Depth: 3' Client: \VH Pacific K L E I N F E L D E R, INC, Project: McCall Airport Figure Project No: 98880 100 Particle Size Distribution Report s g Y•, 0 N - ri 20 0 500 100 10 % COBBLES % GRAVEL 26.7 ( 31.4 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 3 in. 73.3 2 in. 73.3 1.5 in. 62.0 - 1 in. 57.1 3/4 in. 54.2 1/2 in. 49.7 3/8 in. 47.2 #4 41.9 #10 36.8 #40 16.0 #100 7.1 #200 52 (no specification provided) Sample No.: 4800 Location: TP -11 0.1 GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND 36.7 0.01 0.001 % SILT 1 %CLAY 5.2 Soil Description Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel and Cobbles PL= D85-__ CUD�1.12 r14611 USCS= Atterberci Limits LL= PI= Coefficients Dfi0= 34.8 D15= 0.392 Cc= 0.15 Classification AASHTO= Remarks Moisture Content: 4.3% D50= 13.1 D10= 0.238 Source of Sample: Date: 11/18/08 Elev./Depth: 1.5' KLEINFELDER, INC. Client: WH Pacific Project: McCall Airport Project No: 98880 Figure PERCENT FINER 100 00 70 130 50 H 40 -- 30 20 -- 10 0 1 500 4 Particle Size Distribution Report d d .4 .5 a w m w — rl rl o v a fi .. ti '% COBBLES 100 10 %GRAVEL SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 2 in. 79.0 1.5 in. 79.0 1 in. 71.2 3/4 in. 65.9 1/2 in. 60.0 3/8 in. 56.0 414 48.7 4110 39.2 440 19,7 4/100 10.6 4200 7.7 GRAIN SIZE - mm %SAND 41,0 01 0.001 % SILT I % CLAY 7.7 Soil Description Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand Atterbera Limits PL= LL= PI -- Coefficients D85= D60= 12.7 X30= 0.975 Di 5= 0.269 Cu= 94.66 Cc= 0.56 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Moisture Content: 9.4% D50= 5:44 Dip. 0.134 (iio specification provided) Sample No.: 4801 Source of Sample: Date: 11/18/08 Location: TP -13 1' Elev./Depth: 1' Client: WH Pacific K L E I N F E L D E R, INC" Project: McCall Airport Project No: 98880 Fiqure 100 90 Particle Size Distribution Report .d de i35 0 W 60 — z H 50 0 Ix a 40 500 1 ' % COBBLES SIEVE SIZE #200 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND % GRAVEL PERCENT SPEC. PASS? FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 47.0 (no specification provided) Sample No.: 4802 Location: TP -14 2' Source of Sample: Client: WH Pacific Project: McCall Airport Protect No: 98880 KLEINFELDER, INC. PL. 21 D85= D30= Cu= USCS= Moisture Content: % SILT 47.0 Soil Description 0.001 1 %CLAY Atterber i Limits LL= 35 PI= 14 Coefficients D60= D50= D10= D15= Cc= Classification AASFITO= Remarks 26,4% Date: 11/18/08 Elev./Depth: 2' Figure 100 00 ' 80 70 - 30 20 -- 10 -- 500 .4 N Particle Size Distribution Report .d .c .s 100 10 I. % COBBLES % GRAVEL SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 2 in. 80.4 1.5 in. 67.0 1 in. 65.1 3/4 in. 63,1 1/2 in. 60.4 3/8 in. 59.1 04 56.6 010 52.3 4140 26.1 11100 16.5 4200 13.3 (no spccification prav'idcd) Sample No.: 4803 Location: TP -3 @ 1.5' 0,1 GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND 43:3 0,01 0.001 %SILT 1 % CLAY 13.3 Soil Description Silty Gravel Atterbera Limits PL= LL= Coefficients D85= D60= 11.7 D30= 0.541 D15= 0.111 Cif." Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Moisture Content: 12.5% Pl= 050- 1:67 D10= Source of Sample: Date: 11/18/08 Elev./Depth: 1.5 KLEINFELDER, INC. Client: WH Pacific Project: McCall Airport Project No: 98880 Figure PERCENT FINER Particle Size Distribution Report sN--.,-P1 „I N f'1 Fl g � g a a F• li u i w 20• 10 ._ p 500 % COBBLES % GRAVEL SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (XL -NO) 1 in. 89.2 314 in. 83.9 112 in. 81.4 3/8 in. 80.4 414 78.2 4110 73.9 1140 53.0 41100 37.9 #200 31.6 (no specification provided) Sample No.: 4804 Location: TP -14 @ 2' GRAIN SIZE: mm % SAND 46,6 0.1 0.01 0.001 % SILT 1 % CLAY I 31.6 Soli Description Clayey sand with gravel Atterberq Limits PL= 20 LL= 32' P1= 12 Coefficients D85= 20.5 D60= 0.659 D56=. 0.353 D30= D15= Dip= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SC AASHTO= Remarks Moisture Content: 22.1% Source of Sample: Date: 11/18/08 Elev./Depth: 2' KLEINFELDER, INC. Client: \VH Pacific Project: McCall Airport Project No: 98880 Figure 100 90 80 W 60 z ' LT. 50 W U a40 30 go 0 500 Particle Size Distribution Report t 6' 2 7 ; L! m I% COBBLES 100 10 % GRAVEL SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 3/4 in. 95.2 1/3 in. 93,5 3/8 in. 92.6 114 89.2 #10 84,9 #40 58,5 41 100 44,4 41200 39,8 " (no specification provided) Sample NO.: 4805 Location: TP -8 @ 2' 0.1 GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND 49.4 0.01 % SILT 39.8 Soli Description Clayey Sand Atterberq Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D85= 2.02 D60= 0.462 D30= D15= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Moisture Content: 26.2% 0.001 % CLAY D50= 0.247 D10= Source of Sample: Date: 11/18/08 Elev./Depth: 2' Client: WH Pacific KLEINFELDER, INC. Protect: McCall Airport Project No: 98880 Figure PERCENT'FINER Particle Size Distribution Report JJ d M 60 50 40 30 +' •20 10 0 500 % COBBLES 100 10 %GRAVEL SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 1.5 in. 82.8 1 in. 75.2 3/4 in. 62.8 1/2 in. 54.2 3/8 in. 49.5 414 42,0 4110 33.8 4140 6.6 41100 2.3 41200 1.7 (no specification provided) Sample No.: 4806 GRAIN SIZE • mm %SAND 40.3 0.01 0.001 %SILT 1 %CLAY Soli Description Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand 1.7 Atterbera Limits PL- LL= PI= Coefficients D85= D60= 17.5 DSo= 9.83 D30= 1.57 D15= 0.726 D10= 0.546 Cu. 31.99 Cc= 0.26 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks Moisture Content: 4.9% Source of Sample: Date: 11/18/08 Location: TP -2 @ 1.5' EIev./Depth: 1.5' KLEINFELDER, INC. Client: \VH Pacific Project: McCall Airport Project No: 98880 Figure 60 50 40 30 20 10 4 / LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT Dashed line indicates the approximate / upper limit boundary for natural soils / 10 30 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION • Clayey sand with gravel Project No. 98880 Project: McCall Airport • Location: TP -14 @ 2' Client: \VH Pacific 50 70 LIQUID LIMIT MH ori OH 90 1' 0 LL PL P1 %<#40 %<#200 USCS 32 20 12 53.0 31.6 SC LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT KLEINFELDER, INC. Remarks: • Figure 6 -CL- EINFELDER NyI,IRur4.gr,lI MlL,nL r::dirornin Dentine Ratio or Laboratory-Cornnncfed Soils Project: Project No; Lati No.; Source: Moierial Description: f„rJ0060dnn lnfonnnlin0 Method: Mit4 mum Dry Deusily,per. OptimumMnisturcCotncnl percent: McColl Air Port 911800.103 TOS -229A TP•2 e1.3' Partly Graded Gravel with Sand D-1557 136.2, Select wcinht units, n for rrame, Ib Gu nnnedi Mold WIC Ib I IVU We+Mold. lb Before Test 15.6 26.7 Wel Solt lb I 11.1 I Wel Densly. ncfl 148.07" Ory Density. nerl 135.9 9.0 L lb AflerTnl 13.6 26.9 11.2 149.54 135.3 TNi,.r. Before After After Sonbbm 1 I ConinInlllon 'Constitution Tan Ir' I IIolloni 1" I era , 82 ; 83 1.7 1.7 l I ' Wei M.+ Tam. ill 835.1 I 835.1 76.3 f 81.3 1 1 thy 1Vt + Tare, r3 773.4 I 773.4 69.6 I 73.7 1 I '" 11',OfWoler.'n1 61.7 1 61.7 6.7 G 7.6 II 1 W1,01Dry Soil. r,I 691.4 I 691.4 _ 67,9 1 72.0 Afalstura %a1 8.9 1 8.9 941 1 10.6 Select Points ibr Cnnreled .1*enelrallon, Corrected Load, Ib Shots pr•1 COR Value CDR Paints Values I 01 0 Swell 0alu Dela 1 I1.20- 1 I 11.24 I 1 0.025 0,050 0.075 0.1001 0:1251 0.1301 0.1751 0.2001 0.300i 0.4001 0.5001 0.6001 Tilna 1:15 10:10 335 793 1288 1605 I99D 2234+ 2436 2575 29781 33701 37401 Dle1 Reading in 02657 02855 0,0 111.6 264.6 429.1 361.3 662.9 744.2 811.5 037,0 992.1 1125.3 1245.9+ Swell lorries •0.0004 DIVA 01414 IIWA #NIA Dfl/A JIMA /M/A MIA I/NIA f/n/A 1114 f f/N/A tiNIA Perm' Swell, a,6 OA016 -0.01Si MCCALL AIR PORT CDR 01000,103 TP -2i1.5 700.2204 ASTA10.10031AASIITO T-193 TeaIed 13y: C.1' Tet Di10c 11/24/2008 liaviewedny: GM1.4 Mnld tnfapnnfnn: Mold ID.: * A Aiold Volum!, 0'; I lelgltt of Mold, In: 1400 . ,Phren Infpn Inlinll Piston Diantelc , in: 1.9 I'isian Arai, ins; 'Sunni -lays, of Values 0,411 DY'I,CI81E91 CDR DD before, pcf 135.9 CDR DOAlter. ref 135,9 CUR Pcicerp ConipsoII ri Ya 99.1{5/. CDR,WC 0efare, 16 8.936 CIIIt Yid Top, 16• 9.986 port WCAvc,'4 10.2% pelt Sureliarga,lbr 10 CDR5oaI:Ing Period, lir, 96 COR Parcrnl Swell, 16 0 DIM. Value n 0.1 inches 56.1 Corrected CDR ValuoQ0.2lnches ,NWA 1290 -- 1600 a 000 C13R Piot Co11S01, STRESS STRAIN 0.0 0.000 111.6 0.025 204.8 0,030 429,1 0.075 56L3 0.100 6629 0.123 744.2 0.150 811.5 0,175 8528 0.200 992.1 4304 1125.3 0.400 1245.9 0.500 Laboratory CDR Tari 1 • 0.2 0.21 0.3 035 0.4 0.45 05 I'e,wlrallon, In 11024/2000 { KLEINFEL•DER Cnlirornin liearine Ratio of LabnrntorvComoaclyd Solis Prnjitt: Project Rut Lob 11'0.: Source: Material Description; (:nmw,Jo7 IOf5+tp3nll0, hfuhoJ kleelmom Dry Drnsllt' ; , pc' Optimum h1oIsIwe Comm; percent: Wee{ werbt units, a for prem. lb for pounds nerore Test I I - Mold We, Ib 16,0 11 Wel Wt. a Mold 0, 26.5 Wel Soil. Ib 10.0 1 WerDensin', Pcr 140,62 j 1 Rev Density. yeti 126.5 1 McColl AlrPutt 98880.103 T01 -229C TP•3 QI.50' Silly Grovel aid, Sand 0.1557 126.4 11,3 l lb After 'ref 16,0 26.6 10.6 141,69 128.5 Ilefore After AfterSonldnte Corafaetlan Compnellon Tog 1" Bottom 1" -TWO WI.. n 85.9 85,9 1.7 1.7 I Wet WL + Tore r. Dry WI.+Toro, r. WL Of Wow. p LVL or Dry sell, &I Moisture. 5:I Select Palms ror ColreeteJ CDR Value' [Wall Delo 1 Dine I 11.20 I 11.24 1 014.3 814.3 77 1 70.2 741 741 66.4 I 63.8 73.3 73,3 1 10.0 I 6.4 655,1 655.1 64.7 I 62.1 111.2 11,2 16.4 l 10.3 Pnrctmtiou, coed, Ili in 0 0.0251 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0,1751 0.200 0.280 0.400 0.500 0.600 Tinto 3:15 10:15 MGCALL AIR PORI CDR 00000.103 TP -3@1 .5 TOB -229C 0 1461 297 490 652 780 C90 1002 1104 1520 1962 2476 Din! 1L odinp, In 0.2536 0.2548 Slres5;1151 0.0 48,6 08.9 163.2 217.2 262.5 299.5 333.8 367.8 509.0 653.6 825.5 Satll Inches 0 0,0012. Corrected CDR Woe Posits NN/A NN/A ONlA l/11/A IIN/A NWA NWA ONJA ON/A ON/A 8104 1/N/A ON/A Percent Swell1 % 4.007 0.0376 AST7110.1883/MS1ITO T•193 Tesled Dy C.P Tell Dolce 1 1/24120066 Reviewed Dy'. rn j fnld In fonnetion: Meld lD.:' C Mold Volume, (P; 0.0750 Ilalen or Mold, in: 4.5820 lrjenn lnfgn inion rislon Dlomeiey 1n 1.9 Piston Arco, Ins. Sunttnarv'Of Values , Lit ftSPECIMEN COMM Defore, per 174.5 ONS CDR DDMkt. Per 170.5 CDR Peeceut Compaction, 86 100.1% STR1:55 COR WC Ilcforo, 8O .11.256 0.0 COR \VC'fop, % '16.4% 40.6 COR WC Ave, 46 13.314 98.9 CBRSurebnigL.Ibs 10 J63:2 CORSool:IngPeriod, h 56 217.2 CORP milt SwoIl,.8i 0.03 262.5 Curt Value 0.0.11nclip 21.7 299.5 8141. Corrected COR Value Q 11.2 incite CBR Plot 333.6 367.8 509.0 653.6 625,5 STRAIN 0.030 p.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0,175 0,200 0.300 0.400 0.506 Laboratory CDR Test P000lrellon, In 11/24/2000 LK E/NF"ELDE/7 1,iohire44,44s)i oem, Collin polo Renrhle Rn lin of Lnboraloro.Cnrnnnclell Solis Pro Jett: Pinje:1 No: Lob No,: Bianca; Moterhd Ocsalpllo0: CPmpnellon lnrmnrmint) hfedtad: Maxinwm Dry Density, per: Opsiwum Molrluro Content, peiccnl: McColl Alt Pon 98880.103 T08.229D TP -8 rr 2,0' Clayey Send D-1557 110.0 04.5 Sonat ivoldlt units n for rams, Ib for Bounds 1 Ib 1 RefareTTest After Tell 1 Mold WI., Ib 160 16.0 Wel Wt. +Mold.lb 25.4 25.5 WctSoil.14 9.4 9.5 Wet Density, mai 125.37 176.70 Dry botchy. oefl 109.9 109.2 Ileforo I After After Snnldn0 1 Compnrtton CompnNion Top 1'I 1 Dolton) 1" Two Wt.. al 85,2 • 85.2 1.7 1.7 Wel Wt. +Tare, n1 474 474 41.1 ' 33,8 Dry We + Taro. r.1 426 1 426 33.6 I 46,6 Wt. Of Water, 01 48 1 dB 7.3 i 7.2 WI. OfDrySoil, EI 44.9 340,6 I 340.0 33.1 j M0111uro, % 14,1 I 14.1 72,7 I 16.0 Solent Points for Corrected CDR Woof Penctritiva, in 1i d,Ib Swell Data I onto 11.20 11-24 • 0.025 0050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.1501 0.1751 0.2001 0.3001 0.4001 0.5001 0.6001 Time 4:0D 10:15 MCCALL AIR PORT CDR 90800.103 TP-01?02,0 T00.2296 0 39 641 92 115 138 160 I85 210 320 442 568 D101 Rodin& In 0.1342 0.1439 Cotrccicd Strass, pal CBR'Vo1u4 Point: 0.0 33.0 21.3 30,61 38.31 46.01 53.31 70.01 106.61 147.21 109.21 Swell Inches 0 00097 PN//1; IIN/A IN/A NWA OwA ;NIA ON/A 1I14/A ON/A MIA ONIA 0MA NwA Percent Swcli, 91, 0.00% 0.21% ASTM D•IOS3/AASHTO T-193 7'ecled By: C.P Test Dole: 11R4/2008i7� r+, RovlewedI3y: V FT Mold Innnnndon: Piano htfmr rotion Mold ID.: If Piston Platoon), in: 5.955 Mold Volume, fir; 0.0750 Fitton Alen, In': llciObl ()Mold, In: 4.7000 . Sumuiarv'.of VR ties IJ1irSPNfi1MEN ' - • - • i3R'.131).Dcfote,'pef. 109,9 ' - cONSO], COR DD AOcr.,Pcf ' 1094 COR j'ctcenl Compbclion,.41 99.956 '• STRLSs STRAIN COR WC 13elbr0 05 , 1.1,050 0.0 .(000 .CeltWC.Topi°r622:255 . 13,0 0.025 CRR \VC MIA a l?,4 i0 21.3 0.050 . CBR Surely/go. lbs .5 •30,6 - 0,075 ClikSonklo8P.rt0od;dir. 96. '.; "38.3 .0.100 'CO3RPoteco&Snoll'%b 0.25'0 'I6.0• ;0,125 CI3R Vuluc 63 0,1 inches. ' 3.0 53,3 ; 0,150 61.6 •0J7$ . Cooed c4CIIRynluo60.2Inches: . 11diA 70.0 0.'0.200 IU5.6 0.300 , 147.2 0,400 189.2 0.500 i 200 100 100 •a top 120 h 100 - Cart Plot 00 04 -- 20 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Lnbsfntoly CBR Tod 0.2 0.25 0,7 Ponolrcllon, In 04 0.45 06 11/2412008 " KKL NFEL.DER ei2rarleWn POIPfarm Callfornin Bear100 Rollo of [Awn torv-Cumnnelyd Snits rtojen: Project No: Lab No.: Source: I.letaiol D3scrip:Ion; Camrrndn brfaunetlnn Methal: Maximum Dry Density, pet: Optimum Moisture Content, percent: Select t'r vain, a for emms.11, far pounds before Test I Mold Wt., IIr 13.7 1 Wet Wt.+ Mold. lb 25.4 1 Wes 5oil. lb 9.7 1 C Wet Densih.131'1 129.07 Dry Density. nail 116.1 1 McCall Air Pot 98800,103 T08 -229D TP" 14 (1)2.0' Clayey Sand whb OImM1 D-1557 115.7 11.5 1 Ib After nit 15.7 25.6 10.0 132.81 121.4 Dcfore I After 1 Cantnncdan Comnanioni Tnre Wt.. n 83.7 03.7 Wet WI, + Tare. 0.1 747.2 747.2 ore WI." rTara, el 680.7 600.7 1 wI.Of Water,66.5 66.5 Ws, OrDry &Ilisp�� 597.0 597.0 1 Moisture, %1 11.1 11.1 1 Sclesi Paints far Canceled can Volvo' Swell Data 1 Dcto 11.20 11-24 Pencna1011, Lod, Ito In 0 0.025 0.050 0.173; 0.1001 0.1251 0.150 0.175 0.200 D.300 0.4001 0.5001 04001 Time 12:04 10:04 MCCALL AIR PORT CBR 09800.103 TP -14C/2.0 T00 -220D 1 01 1111 2121 2901 3451 3861 4261 4641 -5001 6321 7651 0.101 1101 poling. in 0.2692 0.2811 Stress; jrsi After Sualdne ton fa 1 Haltom 1" 1.7 1.7 60.3 + 58.9 51,7 i54 16.6 4.9 50.0 52.3 33.2 1 9.4 Connoted CDR Volue Polnit 0.0 UN/A 37.0 UNIA 70.6 OW 964 ON/d1 114.9 ONIA 128.6 ON/A 141.9 UNIA 154.6 VOW 166.61 MIA 210.5 UN/A 254.8 1INIA 2985 UNIA 1 MIA Swell Incites 0 0.0119 Pcsunl Swell, 95 0.0016 0.2698 1 ASTM D" 1683/AASDTO T-153 TcncJ Dy: C.P Ten Dole: II/241230S, K.Reviewed By: [GAF d 1mr. don Mold iU.: Mold Volume, Rr; Heinle ofMold, In 260 200 tw I�� 100 pinen Infnn etIo Piston D(miteter, in: 1,953 Piston Area It?; 3,002 S.illilTliarsr al -Values LAB SPfiCI 1I1N" CDR DD Dcfmo, put 116,1 CONSOp CDR DD ADcr. Per 121,4 R Percent Compaction, 96 (:DR WC Befotc, 95 C01( WC Top, '95 CDR WC Ave. 96 CDRStrehar8e,114 CBR' Saolrinp Period, lir. CDR Pcrcenl Swe11,.56 CDR Vnlu3 n 0.1 Incbcs Canented CDR Vnluo Q 0.2 Inches PoR riot 100,49-6 STnEss 11.195 0.0 33.295 37,0 21,595 70.6 10 90,6 96 114.9 0.100 0.394 1286 0.123 11,5 141,9 0.150 154,6 0,173 /WIN 166.6 0.200 210.5 0,300 254.0 0,400 2965 0.500 STRAIN 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.073 a 0 005 01 0.16 Lnhotnlory CDR Tool I. 0.2 0.23 0.3 0.35 Penetration, In (-H 0.4 0.40 43 r 150 145 140 0135 0 130— w 125 0 !1. ONE-S 13O1SEGPJ 1121,08 la PROJECT NO. 120 ]15 110 105 100 SU:MIl1l1ARY OF TEST RESULTS Material Description POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND Proposed Use FILL Source TP -2 Tcst Method ASTM D 1557 Mel.ltod C Maximum Dry 126,6 Density (pct') Maximum Dry Density w/rock 136.2 Correction(pc!) Optimum 1Vnicr 9% Content (%) +3/4" Rack(%) 30 Specific Ornvity Lab Sample No. '1'08.229A Percent 2%Passing 420D CURVES OI 100%SATURATION FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL TO: 2,75 2,70 2,65 95 90 0 KLElIVFEL©ER grrghr It.pk. NO/ Saluda N. 98860,]09 10 . 15 20 25 WATER CONTENT - PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT 117cCall Air Port MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP 30 FIGURE 13-1 150 145 140 —. o 135 130 to — (,) E 125 — — 0 120 1. 0 110 105 100 95 -90 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS Material Description SILTY GRAVEL wrrll SAND Proposed Use FILL Sourco TP -3 Test Method ASTM D 1557 Method B Maximum Dry 118.2 Density (pa) Maximum Dty Density \Wrack 126.4 COITCCI[on(pc0 Optimum Water 11.3% Content (%) +3/4" Roci(%) 22.8 Specific Gravity Li(, Sample No. T08 -229C Percent Pusslng 1/200 CURVES OF 100% SATURATION FOR SPEC= GRAVITY EQUAL TO: 2.75 --- 2,70 — - 2.65 KLEINFELDEn Ar;ghl People. niplit ladiont. PROJECTNO. 98680.103 10 15 20 25 NA ATER CONTENT - PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT McColl Mr Port MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP 30 FIGURE 150- 145 140 135 0 8 130 E., 12 0-i 120 (.7 ?"- g 115 110 105 100 95 i., ... 90 1.5 ul 0 I KI-EINFELDEP -,.. -......... zdohtnwk.avala SoUlan I. • SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS Material Description • CLAYEY SAND Proposed Use FILL Source 'IP -8 Test Method ASTM D 1557 Method A Maximum Dry 110 Density (pc() Maximum Dry Density vdrock NA Correction(pc0 Optimum Water 14.5% Content (%) 04" Rock(%) NA Specific Gravity Lab Sample No. T08-22911 Percent Paising #200 40% COWES OF 100% SATURATION FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY PVAL TO: z,75-- 2.70 -- 2.65 .. .. • 6 PROJECT NO. 988110.103 , 10 15 20 WATER CONTENT - PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT McCall Air Port 25 MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP z FIGURE B 015E.G?.1 1 U2 Vin 150 145 140 8 135 0 130 [34 E125 0 12 g 115 lc) SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS 1 Material Description CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL Proposed Use FILL Source TP -14 Test Method ASTM LI 1557 Method 13 MrotinininDry 115.7 Density (pc1) Maximum Dry Densly w/rpek NA Corrcction(pci) Optimum Water 11.5% content (%) +3/4" Rock(%) NA Specific Gravity Lab Sample No. T08 -229D Percent. Passitql1/200 32% 110 105 100 95. CURVES OF 100% SATURATION FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL TO: 2.75 2.70 2.65 0 • 6:t ( KLEINFELDER Rtlrrp.nntio Von PROJEC7'NO. 98880.103 10 15 20 25 WATER CONTENT PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT McCall Mr Port MOISTURE.DENSITY RELATIONSHIP 0 )7IGURE B-1 Appendix 2: EXISTING PAVEMENT DATA _J Figure VC -1. Airport Layoff VcCall VunTc R16MC-03 (152' x 75') Crack Seal (1999) 2° Rubberized AC (1990) 1.5 AC w/ Fabric (1990) Slurry Seal (1985) Crack Seal (1985) 3° AC (1974) 6' Agg. (1974) R16MC-01 (1095' x 75') Crack Seal (1999) 4° Rubberized AC (1990) 8° Agg. Base (1990) 24" Agg. Subbase (1990) A03MC-01 (88' x 70') T04MC-0? (10' x 60') Crack Seal (1999) 2° Rubberized AC (1990) 1.5 AC w/ Fabric (1990) Slurry Seal (1985) Crack Seal (1985) 3° Road Mix AC (1970) 4° Agg. Base (1970) 4" Agg. Subbase (1970) R16MC-02 (4,855' x 75') Crack Seal (1999) 3.5° Rubberized AC w/ Fabric (1990)! Slurry Seal (1985) Crack Seal (1985) 3° AC (1974) 6° Agg. (1974) 994) 4) A01 MC -01 (350' x 25') AC (unk.) Unknown Base T02MC-01 (39' x 100') Crack Seal (1999) 2" Rubberized AC w/ Fabric (1990) Slurry Seal (1985) Crack Seal (1985) 3" AC (1974) 6° Agg. (1974) IMC -05 0' x 40') MC -06 1' x 295') '2 MC -05 T02]' x 295') (149IMC-04 Crag x 30') SlurAC (1994) Crag Agg. Base (1994) 3° Agg. Subbase (1994) 6" A T011 (1,2 3°A 824°1PAVEV1ENT CONSULTANTS INC. 0 250 500 �J A02MC-03 (540' x 275') 2° AC (1997) 2° AC (1985) 3° Agg. (1985) 12° Agg. (1985) A02MC-04 (490' x 215') 3° AC (1997) 4° Agg. (1997) 6° Agg. 3"-0 (1991) T04MC-06 (500' x 60') A01MC-02 (200' x 85') 4° AC (1997) 6° Agg. Bose (1997) 6° Agg. Subbase (1997) A01MC-03 (125' x 60') 3° AC (1994) 4° Agg. Base (1970) 4° Agg. Subbase (1970) A01 MC04 (150' x 130') A01MC-05 (166' x 80') Slurry Seal (1985) Crack Seal (1985) 3° Road Mix AC (1970) 4° Agg. Base (1970) 4° Agg. Subbase (1970) 1000 Appendix 3: PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE McCaII Airport - Taxiway Improvements Item No. Parallel Taxiway 1505 Mobilization LS 1 1115 Temporary Flagging, Marking, and Signing LS 1 1406 Construction Staking LS 1 100 Contractor Quality Control LS - 1 P-101 Removal of Asphalt SY $2.50 27,573 P-151 Clearing and Grubbing LS $10,000.00 1 P-152 Excavation and Embankment CY $15.00 14,401 P-154 Subbase Course CY $25.00 10,192 P-403 Stabilized Base Course CY $85.00 5,436 P-401 Plant Mix Bituminous Surface Course TON $75.00 5,271 P-602 Bituminous Prime Coat GAL $3.00 3,669 P-603 Bituminous Tack Coat GAL $3.00 3,471 P-620 Runway and Taxiway Painting SF $1.00 2,880 T-901 Seeding AC $3,000.00 2.5 T-905 Topsoil CY $20.00 1,500 Centerline Reflectors EA $500.00 62 Drainage LS - 1 Edge Drains LF $10.00 11,800 (CBR 5) Taxiway Separation 240' 300' 400' Item Description Unit Unit Price Quant. 1 Cost Quant. 1 Cost Quant. 1 Cost 5296,300.00 1 5328,500.00 1 5386,200.00 $39,500.00 1 543,800.00 1 551,500.00 $79,000.00 1 $87,600.00 1 $103,000.00 $98,800.00 1 $109,500.00 1 $128,700.00 $68,933.33 31,731 $79,326.39 43,508 $108,770.83 510,000.00 1 810,000.00 1 $10,000.00 $216,013.191 14,401 $216,013.19 14,401 $216,013.19 $254,803.24 11,105 $277,618.06 12,127 $303,182.87 $462,043.21 5,923 $503,414.07 6,468 $549,771.60 $395,289.35 5,744 $430,784.72 6,308 $473,113.43 $11,007.50 3,998 $11,993.10 4,366 $13,097.50 $10,412.50 3,783 $11,347.50 4,154 $12,462.50 $2,880.00 2,880 $2,880.00 2,855 $2,855.00 $7,500.00 2.5 $7,500.00 2.5 $7,500.00 $30,000.00 1,500 $30,000.00 1,500 $30,000.00 $31,000.00 62 $31,000.00 61 $30,500.00 $10,000.00 1 $48,000.00 1 $95,000.00 $118,000.00 11,800 $118,000.00 11,800 $118,000.00 Subtotal $2,141,482.33 Taxiway A-1 P-101 Removal of Asphalt SY $2.50 853 $2,131.94 P-151 Clearing and Grubbing LS $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 P-152 Excavation and Embankment CY $15.00 313 $4,691.67 P-154 Subbase Course CY $25.00 429 $10,716.44 P-403 Stabilized Base Course CY $85.00 229 $19,432.47 P-401 Plant Mix Bituminous Surface Course TON $75.00 225 $16,872.64 P-602 Bituminous Prime Coat GAL $3.00 154 $462.95 P-603 Bituminous Tack Coat GAL $3.00 148 $444.45 P-620 Runway and Taxiway Painting SF $1.00 303 $302.75 Centerline Reflectors EA $500.00 7 $3,500.00 $2,347,277.04 $2,639,666.93 853 $2,131.94 853 $2,131.94 1 $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 395 $5,925.00 477 $7,152.78 531 $13,285.88 790 $19,741.90 283 $24,091.73 421 $35,798.64 278 $20,858.75 4141 $31,066.99 191 $573.951 284 $852.85 183 $549.45 273 $818.35 291 $290.75 3601 $359.75 7 $3,500.00 10 $5,000.00 Subtotal $59,555.301 $72,207.45 $103,923.20 Taxiway A-2 P-101 Removal of Asphalt SY $2.50 1,119 $2,798.61 1,119 $2,798.61 1,119 $2,798.61 P-151 Clearing and Grubbing LS $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 P-152 Excavation and Embankment CY $15.00 372 $5,580.56 454 $6,813.89 566 $8,486.11 P-154 Subbase Course CY $25.00 540 $13,510.42 643 $16,079.86 988 $24,709.49 P-403 Stabilized Base Course CY $85.00 288 $24,498.89 343 $29,158.15 527 $44,806.54 P-401 Plant Mix Bituminous Surface Course TON $75.00 286 $21,454.77 339 $25,440.88 523 $39,213.84 P-602 Bituminous Prime Coat GAL $3.00 195 $583.65 232 $694.65 356 $1,067.45 P-603 Bituminous Tack Coat GAL $3.00 188 $565.15 223 $670.15 344 $1,032.95 P-620 Runway and Taxiway Painting SF $1.00 425 $424.75 383 $382.75 453 $453.25 Centerline Reflectors EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00 11 $5,500.00 16 $8,000.00 Subtotal $75,416.79 $88,538.94 $131,568.25 Taxiway A-3 P-101 Removal of Asphalt SY $2.50 1,119 $2,798.61 1,119 $2,798.61 1,119 $2,798.61 P-151 Clearing and Grubbing LS $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 P-152 Excavation and Embankment CY $15.00 372 $5,580.56 454 $6,813.89 566 $8,486.11 P-154 Subbase Course CY $25.00 540 $13,510.42 643 $16,079.86 988 $24,709.49 P-403 Stabilized Base Course CY $85.00 288 $24,498.89 343 $29,158.15 527 $44,806.54 P-401 Plant Mix Bituminous Surface Course TON $75.00 286 $21,454.77 339 $25,440.88 523 $39,213.84 P-602 Bituminous Prime Coat GAL $3.00 195 $583.65 232 $694.65 356 $1,067.45 P-603 Bituminous Tack Coat GAL $3.00 188 $565.15 223 $670.15 344 $1,032.95 P-620 Runway and Taxiway Painting SF $1.00 425 $424.75 383 $382.75 453 $453.25 Centerline Reflectors EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00 11 $5,500.00 16 $8,000.00 Subtotal $75,416.79 $88,538.94 $131,568.25 Taxiway A-4 P-101 Removal of Asphalt SY $2.50 1,883 $4,708.33 1,883 $4,708.33 1,883 $4,708.33 P-151 Clearing and Grubbing LS $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 P-152 Excavation and Embankment CY $15.00 372 $5,580.56 454 $6,813.89 566 $8,486.11 P-154 Subbase Course CY $25.00 540 $13,510.42 643 $16,079.86 988 $24,709.49 P-403 Stabilized Base Course CY $85.00 288 $24,498.89 343 $29,158.15 527 $44,806.54 P-401 Plant Mix Bituminous Surface Course TON $75.00 286 $21,454.77 339 $25,440.88 523 $39,213.84 P-602 Bituminous Prime Coat GAL $3.00 195 $583.65 232 $694.65 356 $1,067.45 P-603 Bituminous Tack Coat GAL $3.00 188 $565.15 223 $670.15 344 $1,032.95 P-620 Runway and Taxiway Painting SF $1.00 425 $424.75 383 $382.75 453 $453.25 Centerline Reflectors EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00 11 $5,500.00 16 $8,000.00 Subtotal $77,326.51 $90,448.66 $133,477.97 Taxiway A-5 P-101 Removal of Asphalt SY $2.50 942 $2,354.17 942 $2,354.17 942 $2,354.17 P-151 Clearing and Grubbing LS $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 P-152 Excavation and Embankment CY $15.00 313 $4,691.67 395 $5,925.00 477 $7,152.78 P-154 Subbase Course CY $25.00 429 $10,716.44 531 $13,285.88 790 $19,741.90 P-403 Stabilized Base Course CY $85.00 229 $19,432.47 283 $24,091.73 421 $35,798.64 P-401 Plant Mix Bituminous Surface Course TON $75.00 225 $16,872.64 278 $20,858.75 414 $31,066.99 P-602 Bituminous Prime Coat GAL $3.00 154 $462.95 191 $573.95 284 $852.85 P-603 Bituminous Tack Coat GAL $3.00 148 $444.45 183 $549.45 273 $818.35 P-620 Runway and Taxiway Painting SF $1.00 303 $302.75 291 $290.75 360 $359.75 Centerline Reflectors EA $500.00 7 $3,500.00 7 $3,500.00 10 $5,000.00 Subtotal 559,777.53 TOTAL 52,489,000.00 P:\Ciity of McCall\034256\Design\Cost Estimates'McCall Airport_Concept Quantities.bs: Total (2272009) $72,429.67 $2,759,500.00 $104,145.43 53,244,400.00 Appendix 4: PAVEMENT DESIGN AIRPORT PAVEMENT DESIGN STATE CITY AIRPORT Idaho McCall McCall Municipal Airport PROJECT NUMBER SPONSOR DESIGN ENGINEER 3-16-0023-014 City of McCall WHPacific PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2009 Taxiway Relocation Environmental Assessment SINGLE WHEEL 80,000 lbs DESIGN NC Dual GROSS ALLOWABLE AIRCRAFT WEIGHT (KIPS) (Gear configuration or aircraft type) DUAL TANDEM B-747 L 1011 DUAL WHEEL 110,000 lbs EQUIV. DEPARTURES CBR DESIGN CR TERIA K GROSS NC WT. (kips) USC FLEX. STRENGTH 1,200 5 110 TYPICAL SECTIONS (Show and number each course) NON CRITICAL AREAS CRITICAL AREAS DC -10 - Cb or Cr F DESIGN DETAILS THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT NONCRITICAL NONCRITICAL NO. COURSE RUNWAY RUNWAY TAXIWAY TAXIWAY APRON SPECIFICATION 1 A.C. 4" P-401 2 BASE 8" P-304 3 SUBBASE 15" P-154 FAA FORM 5100-1 (7-80) Supersedes Previous Edition SOIL ANALYSIS GRADATION (% DASSING) DEPTH OF % FINER 1 TEST HOLE SAMPLE 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" 4 10 40 100 200 THAN 0.02 MM L.L. P.I. USC AVERAGE FROST PENETRATION 24 inches COMMENTS3 See Geotechnical Report for soil analysis. SUBGRADE CHARACTERISTICS SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE YES CP FROST DESIGN METHOD2 ® LSP ❑ I RSP ❑ I RSS ❑ NOTES 1. Applies only when material is used above frost line 2. Select one 3. Attach Sketch showing location of borings SUBMITTED BY Jason Ritchie, P.E. APPROVED BY APPROVED BY TITLE Project Engineer FAA REGIONAL PAVING ENGINEER FAA STATE AIRPORT ENGINEER NONE ri DATE February 2009 DATE f I DATE AC 1150/5320-6D 36 CBR 5 B 7 8 810 15 20 1 I I I I �Illl�lll 1111I11I1111III 111111 IIIIIIhIIIlI111 !' 111111 I111111111I1111 111111 0111111111111111111111 11111 11111011 1 1 11111 11111111 11 11i0!II 11101!!111 11111111 111111lii1!111111ZIIIP 11111 i1!!111111IlHiil!! IIIIIIiill;. II11i'11 1111111:!!IIII1111 Iiil!!111111i IiI� E'oo 1 I6:111111I1ii!!Iluliiui.,11,1111inmai7o i •- �� 1111111i1!!II111I11ii{!!I PVUII11111Iiil;!11lIIIlll1u„0oo it rso .%+? 1110 1111111111111i1111111 II Il k. Illlllit°oo 70' 111111111►ii!!I a 1111 i.. il!1111111&._ all 11111IIIIIIII111►,,40111111 °o JiilMINI\ /!%%I 1111I1111111111111111111° 11111111i..1I11111 1rl3moor , IIIIIIIIIIIII0llllll !11111 i !!iilllllllllii mourn%!�\mm1■ 11111111111118111111 111111 Illii!!Illlilllr'ri.wiNimC\ 1■ 1111111111111 111111 111111 III111111111111I ; 4•.'''\R:1 1111111111111 III I 1 in. = 25.4 mmIllHuhJIJhir� 1lb.= 0.454 kgI��� DUAL WHEEL GEAR 30 40 50 4 1111 1111 1111 11 111 II!il!i!1!r�\ 11111111111111 1 111110101111111 11111111 111 l0:111111111 1.111.1:0!111 /ill 1,200 Iil�i�!iIl'!iill i!I 3,000' !;i!l�l�S::fiIIi'I 8,000 11111 ►i�;i;,, 15,000 ' 25 000 4 ,cit;f# 0111!111 tlil iiii1111111111111111111 IIIlllh111I1 :%i'tl1111I111111111Illlllll 111111111111 211111111111111111111111111 11111111111 3 0793 Mirn THICK NESS HOT MIX ASPHALT SURFACES 4 -IN. CRITICAL AREAS 3 -IN. NONCRITICAL AREAS , 1 t 1 4 5 6 7 8910 15 20 THICKNESS, IN. 11 2730 40 50 FIGURE 3-3 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN CURVES, DUAL WHEEL GEAR '1(1/95 Appendix 5: PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION PLANS (25%) (Included as separate plan set for Draft submittal)