Atch 3_MAB Runway Study_redacted.pdf

Runway Study Moore Air Base (MAB)

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)

USDA-ARS-APHIS PPQ

Moore Air Base Edinburg, Texas

Solicitation 12639524R0019 Attachment 2

Runway Study

For

Moore Air Base (MAB) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)

USDA-ARS-APHIS-PPQ

Moore Air Base

22675 North Moorefield Road Edinburg, Texas 78541

The Johnson McAdams Firm, P.A.

108 West Market Street Greenwood, Mississippi

October, 2022

RUNWAY STUDY USDA-ARS-APHIS PPQ

Moore Air Base, Edinburg, Texas

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Moore Air Base (MAB) presently consists of three concrete runways in a triangular configuration with each runway being approximately 5,000 feet long and 300 feet wide. Five concrete taxiways currently connect the runways to the flightline apron. Various buildings include administrative offices, hangars, maintenance facilities, laboratories, etc. are also located at the facility. In total, the facility occupies approximately 630 acres.

The airfield supports Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) operations along the southern border through the aerial application of sterilized fruit flies. The applications are made using two Baron

G58 aircraft along with a Cessna 206 and a Cessna 188. Up to ten application flights are made per day.

An overall inspection of the airfield was made on the 2nd and 3rd of November 2021. The results of this inspection are detailed in Section 7 of this report. Overall, the pavement is in good condition with the following exceptions.

• The air base was built circa 1940 with no significant repairs or improvements made to the pavement since then. The infield areas bordering the runways and taxiways are leased for agricultural purposes. At the time of this report, hay was being grown in these areas. The age of the joint sealant and adjacent land use have combined to allow vegetation to grow in the joints that will exceed 2 feet in height if left alone. This amount of growth produces potentially hazardous conditions for the aircraft and excessive maintenance requirements for the facility.

• Existing pavement markings have deteriorated and need replacing.

• Turf build-up along the pavement edges is restricting drainage from the pavement.

Each of the above deficiencies is recommended for some degree of repair.

As mentioned above, Baron G58’s and single engine Cessna’s are the planes currently used at the facility. The Johnson McAdams Firm, P.A. (JMc) was asked to evaluate the Federal Aviation

Association (FAA) airfield requirements for these planes. JMc was also requested to evaluate the airfields’ ability to potentially support a Lockheed C-130. This is provided in Sections 4 and 5 where it was shown that the current runway lengths and widths along with the taxiway widths are suitable for the Baron G58 and Cessna’s but are insufficient for the Lockheed C-130.

JMc was requested to make recommendations regarding the possible reduction in the operational size of the airfield to reduce maintenance costs. This request produced the following suggested reductions.

Runway 13/31

• Repair all joints across the width and length of the runway and all transverse cracks wider than 1/8 inch.

• Remove turf build up adjacent to runway and grade to drain freely.

• Provide new pavement markings as indicated on drawing C300.

• Designate runway as 14/32 to address changes in magnetic bearing.

Runway 18/36

• Runway 18/36 will be left as is. The facility will continue to perform routine maintenance on the runway at quarterly intervals.

Runway 9/27

• Runway 9/27 will be re-striped and designated as runway 10/28.

• Quarterly maintenance will be provided as necessary to control joint growth.

Taxiway A

• Taxiway A will be left as is. The facility will continue to perform routine maintenance on the taxiway at quarterly intervals.

Taxiway B

• Repair all joints across the width and length of the taxiway and all transverse cracks wider than 1/8 inch.

• Remove turf build up adjacent to taxiway and grade to drain freely.

• Provide new pavement markings as indicated on drawing C300.

Taxiway C

• Repair all joints across the width and length of the taxiway and all transverse cracks wider than 1/8 inch.

• Remove turf build up adjacent to taxiway and grade to drain freely.

• Provide new pavement markings as indicated on drawing C300.

Taxiway D

• Repair all joints across the width and length of the taxiway and all transverse cracks wider than 1/8 inch.

• Remove turf build up adjacent to taxiway and grade to drain freely.

• Provide new pavement markings as indicated on drawing C300.

Taxiway E

• Repair all joints across the width and length of the taxiway and all transverse cracks wider than 1/8 inch.

• Remove turf build up adjacent to taxiway and grade to drain freely.

• Provide new pavement markings as indicated on drawing C300.

Flightline

• The flightline will receive pavement markings as indicated on drawing C300. The facility will continue to perform routine maintenance on the flightline at quarterly intervals.

Overall, the recommended repairs have a current direct cost of approximately $2,345,000 million dollars. The direct cost is assumed to be the cost of the project if it was competitively awarded in the upcoming year.

As this is not possible, it is anticipated that the entire group of repairs will be accomplished over a

10-year maintenance plan with a single project occurring each year. The costs of the smaller projects were adjusted from the direct costs to include an inflation factor and a project size factor.

See the table below for the breakout and cost of each project by maintenance year. Specific inflation factors and project size factors are discussed in the body of the report.

The escalated price with inflation of the recommended repairs is approximately $2,941,800. The various projects are prioritized upon the author’s opinion of importance, value to the government and disruption to the facility. Different groupings and prioritizations can be made upon receipt of input from the facility.

Maintenance Projects and Costs

Project Identifier Description Cost

Project 1, FY1 Access Gates and Signage

Project 2, FY2 Drainage Improvement (Grading) for Runway 14/32, Taxiways B, C, D, and E, and Flightline

Project 3, FY3 Repair Joints on one half of Runway 14/32

Project 4, FY4 Repair Joints on one half of Runway 14/32

Project 5, FY5 Repair Joints on Taxiway B

Project 6, FY6 Repair Joints on Taxiway C

Project 7, FY7 Repair Joints on Taxiway D

Project 8, FY8 Repair Joints on Taxiway E

Project 9, FY9 Pavement Markings for Runway 14/32 and 10/28

Project 10, FY10 Pavement Markings for Taxiways B, C, D, E and

Flightline

Total ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Executive Summary

1. General 1

2. Project Description 1

3. Aircraft in Operation at Moore Air Base 2

4. FAA Airport Classifications 2

5. FAA Runway and Taxiway Dimensional Requirements 4

5.1 FAA Minimum Requirements 4

5.2 Runway Structural Requirements 5

5.3 Conclusion 5

6. FAA Required Runway and Taxiway Pavement Markings and Signage 6

7. Runway, Taxiway and Flightline Existing Conditions 7 and Recommendations

7.1 General 7

7.2 Runways and Taxiways 7

7.3 Runway 13/31 8

7.3.1 Deficiencies 8

7.3.2 Runway 13/21 Recommendations 8

7.4 Runway 18/36 9

7.4.1 Deficiencies 9

7.4.2 Recommendations 10

7.5 Runway 9/27 10

7.5.1 Deficiencies 10

7.5.2 Recommendations 10

7.6 Taxiway “A” 11

7.6.1 Deficiencies 11

7.6.2 Recommendations 11

7.7 Taxiway “B” 11

7.7.1 Deficiencies 11

7.7.2 Recommendations 12

7.8 Taxiway “C” 12

7.8.1 Deficiencies 12

7.8.2 Recommendations 13

7.9 Taxiway “D” 14

7.9.1 Deficiencies 14

7.9.2 Recommendations 14

7.9.2.1 Taxiway “D” between the Flightline and Runway 14/32 14

7.9.2.2 Taxiway “D” between the Runway 14/32 and 18/36 15

7.10 Taxiway “E” 15

7.10.1 Deficiencies 15

7.10.2 Recommendations 15

7.11 Flightline 16

7.11.1 Deficiencies 16

iii

7.11.2 Recommendations 17

8. Runway Safety and Operational Issues 17

9. Airfield Drainage 17

10. Runway Designations 19

11. Estimated Cost of Recommended Repairs 20

12. 10-Year Maintenance Plan 21

13. Detailed Specifications and Drawings 24

Drawings T100 Title Sheet C100 Overall Site Plan C101 Overall Joint Repair Plan C102 Typical Joint Layout Plans C200 Overall Drainage Plan C201 Area ‘A’ Drainage C202 Area ‘B’ Drainage C203 Area ‘C’ Drainage C204 Area ‘D’ Drainage C205 Area ‘E’ Drainage C300 Stripping and Signage Plan C301 Stripping Details C302 Typical Joint Details and Repair C400 Gate Details

Appendices Appendix A Preliminary Cost Estimates Appendix B Sealing of Joints in Rigid Pavement Appendix C Pavement Markings Appendix D Site Visit Report Appendix E Minutes of August 3rd Teleconference

← Removed

RUNWAY STUDY

1. General

Moore Air Base (MAB) is an inactive United States Air Force facility located fourteen miles northwest of Mission, Texas. It was built in 1941, deactivated in 1961 and partially transferred to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1963. MAB is a private airfield but desires to conform to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards for an airfield its size and characteristics.

At present, the facility is operated and maintained by the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). The primary function of the facility is the control of fruit flies along the border. This is accomplished by rearing sterilized fruit flies on-site and aerially depositing them in known areas of infestation using Baron G58’s, Cessna 206’s and Cessna 188’s. At present, the facility operates up to ten flights a day with these aircraft. No aircraft control tower is located at the facility and aircraft operate under visual approach conditions.

2. Project Description

The purpose of this report is to complete a study of the current flight runways at MAB.

The study considers flightlines, current conditions of the runways and includes developing a 10-year maintenance plan which shall include engineering estimates for repair projects based on years and phases. The areas that need to be addressed within the study as it relates to both maintenance and current flight operations shall include, but not be limited to the following:

a. Inspect and review current runways, taxiways, and flightline conditions.

b. Review runway lengths and widths as it relates to the size and type of aircraft currently in operation by the USDA as well as the potential support of a C-130.

c. Review and identify FAA and Federal requirements as it relates to the USDA’s operations at Moore Air Base including, but not limited to signage, lighting, safety zones, maintenance, and USDA’s departmental requirements.

d. Evaluate methods of runway, taxiway, and flightline size reductions that comply with FAA requirements, possibly using pavement markings and/or closing portion or complete runways, etc., to reduce the overall runway sizes and reduce the amount of maintenance required in the future.

e. Inspect and identify any drainage issues created by turf encroachment along the runway and taxiway edges.

f. Develop a 10-year maintenance plan including required methods of repair in addition to specifications for proper repairs and maintenance. The 10-year maintenance plan shall include engineering estimates for all required phases. JMc shall also offer opinion and document where phasing can be grouped/bundled for a cost savings to USDA.

3. Aircraft in Operation at Moore Air Base

The primary aircraft in use at Moore Air Base is the Beechcraft Baron G58. The Baron is a light, twin engine piston aircraft in production by Beechcraft since 1961. It is a low wing monoplane with a gross weight of approximately 5,400 pounds and a cruising speed of 200 knots.

Also in use are Cessna 206’s and 188’s. The Cessna 206 is a single engine monoplane placed in production by Cessna in 1962. It has a gross weight of approximately 3,300 pounds and a cruising speed of 156 knots. The Cessna 188 is a single wing monoplane placed in production in 1966. It has a gross weight of approximately 3,300 pounds and a cruising speed of 94 knots.

While not currently in use at Moore Air Base, APHIS PPQ is considering the possible temporary staging for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to use Lockheed C-130 aircrafts at the facility in the event of natural disasters or emergencies such as hurricanes, floods, etc. At the time of this report, no decision regarding this has been reached.

4. FAA Airport Classifications

Airfields are classified by the FAA as to the size and approach category of the largest aircraft in service at a particular airfield. The FAA classification dictates minimum airfield requirements such as runway length and width, taxiway width, pavement markings, etc.

The planes currently in use at Moore Air Base are the Baron G58, Cessna 206 and Cessna

188. Internal discussions within APHIS PPQ allowing FEMA to potentially use a Lockheed C-130 aircraft at Moore AB are ongoing. For this reason, the design requirements for both the Baron G58 and the Lockheed C-130 are presented in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 FAA Airport Classifications

Aircraft Type Baron G58 C-130 Wingspan 37’-10” 132’-7”

Maximum Takeoff Weight 5,500 lbs. 155,000 lbs.

Maximum Landing Weight 5,400 lbs. 130,000 lbs.

Take Off Distance (Includes Ground Roll)

2,345 ft. 6,300 ft.

Landing Distance (Includes Ground Roll)

2,490 ft. 6,300 ft.

Stall Speed 73, kcas 100 kcas Approach Speed 95, kcas 105 kcas

FAA Aircraft Approach Category B B FAA Aircraft Design Group I IV

FAA Classification B-1 B-IV

5. Runway and Taxiway Requirements

5.1 FAA Minimum Requirements

Minimum runway and taxiway lengths and widths are set by the FAA based upon the classification of the airfield and approach. MAB is considered to fall under the FAA “Runway Design Standards for Aircraft Approach A and B Visual Runways and Runways with not less than 3/4-mile Approach Visibility Limits” as outlined in FAA AC 150/5300- 13 and shown in the Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1 FAA Runway and Taxiway Dimensional Requirements

Description B-1 B-IV Runway Length 3,800 ft.(2) 7,000 ft (1)(2)

Runway Width 60 ft. 150 ft.

Runway Shoulder Width 10 ft. 25 ft.

Runway Blast Pad Width 80 ft. 200 ft.

Runway Blast Pad Length 100 ft. 200 ft.

Runway Safety Area Width 240 ft. 500 ft.

Prior to Landing Threshold – Runway

Safety Area Length 240 ft.

600 ft.

Beyond Runway End – Runway Object Free Width 400 ft.

1000 ft.(1)

Runway Object Free – Length Beyond Runway End 240 ft.

800 ft.(1)

Taxiway Width 25 ft. 75 ft.

Taxiway Edge Safety Margin 5 ft. 15 ft.

Taxiway Shoulder Width 10 ft. 25 ft.

Taxiway/Taxilane Safety Area Width 49 ft. 171 ft.

Taxiway Object Free Width 131 ft. 259 ft.

Taxilane Object Free Width 115 ft. 225 ft.

Notes:

(1) Exceeds available.

(2) Runway length at 95’ above sea level and an average mean temperature of

95 degrees Fahrenheit.

5.2 Runway Structural Requirements

No as built drawings or design documents are available for Moore Air Base. The airfield pavement was constructed for single engine aircraft, as such, the pavement is adequate for the Baron and Cessna.

Questions were generated during the preparation of this report as to the ability of the pavement to support the Lockheed C-130 aircraft. Conversations with facility personnel have indicated that the runways are constructed of 12-inch-thick concrete while the taxiways and flightline are constructed of 8-inch-thick concrete. No information is available pertaining to the strength of the pavement. Preliminary calculations based on the following assumptions have indicated that a minimum concrete thickness of 10.5 inches would be able to support the Lockheed C-130. The design assumptions used to determine this value as follows:

Centerline spacing of interior wheels 60-inches

Flexural strength of concrete 650 psi

Gear load 55,000 lbs

Aircraft passes 1,000

Based upon the available information, the airfield could support the operation of a Lockheed C-130 for a minimal number of passes.

5.3 Conclusion

Based upon the minimum dimensions in Table 5.1, insufficient runway lengths and object free zones at Moore Airfield restrict the use of the Lockheed C-130 aircraft according to FAA standards at the elevations and temperatures associated with MAB. However, the Lockheed C-130 aircraft is capable of performing Maximum Effort Landings which only requires 3,000 feet of runway. If the APHIS agreement to use C-130’s is approved, it will be the choice of the APHIS PPQ Airfield Manager and C-130 pilots if Maximum Effort Landings are acceptable during a hazardous event. Maximum Effort Landings are not covered by FAA guidelines; therefore this report will not include options of repair to accommodate the Lockheed C-130.

6. FAA Required Runway and Taxiway Pavement Markings and Signage

Minimum FAA runway and taxiway pavement markings and signage are set out in FAA AC 150/5300-13 and based upon the approach and Design Group designations. See Table

6.1 below for required pavement markings.

Table 6.1 FAA Required Runway and Taxiway Pavement Markings and Signage

Minimum Required Runway Surface Marking Landing Designator Required

Centerline Required Threshold Markings Not Required

Aiming Point Not Required Touchdown Zone Not Required Edge Markings Required

Runway Closure Required Minimum Required Taxiway Surface Marking Centerline Required

Edge Markings Required Hold Fast Markings Requested, but Not Required

Taxiway End Not Required

7. Runway, Taxiway and Flightline Existing Conditions and Recommendations

7.1 General

An initial inspection of the overall condition of the runways, taxiways and flightlines on November 2nd and 3rd of 2021 by Tom Tollison, P.E. and Steven Marshall with The Johnson-McAdams Firm, P.A. The objective of the inspection was to obtain preliminary information regarding the pavements, observe any significant defects and inspect runway drainage. Photographs of the various deficiencies were included in the 11/2/2021 Site Visit Report provided as Appendix D.

7.2 Runways and Taxiways

Moore Air Base has three runways configured in a triangular arrangement. All runways are concrete with a bull nose turnaround at the ends. Runways 9/27 and 18/36 have the turnarounds at each end while 13/31 has one at the southern end only. The usable runway length was determined from the intersection of the runway centerline and the outer edge of the bull nose on Runways 9/27 and 18/36 and from the outer edge of the bullnose to the point of intersection of the centerline and the eastern edge of Runway 18/36 as shown on Drawing C101. Table 7.2 below provides the dimensions of the runways and taxiways.

Table 7.2 Runway and Taxiway Lengths

Runway Length (feet) Width (feet) 13/31 5,150 300 9/27 5,000 300 18/36 5,050 300

Taxiway “A” 530 100 Taxiway “B” 360 100 Taxiway “C” 360 100 Taxiway “D” 2,400 50 Taxiway “E” 1,200 100

7.3 Runway 13/31

7.3.1 Deficiencies

Runway 13/31 (northwest/southeast) parallels the flightline. Overall, the concrete is in good condition. Jointing in the pavement is uniform with an approximate joint spacing of 20 x 20 feet extending from the edge of the runway to within approximately 12 feet of the centerline. Joints spacing along each side of the centerline is 12 feet x 20 feet. Joints in the bull nose areas are made at angles with the runway joints. Joint locations are indicated on Drawing C101.

Noted deficiencies during the inspection are as follows:

a. Transverse cracking (greater than 1/4”) of several panels was noted in approximately 10 panels.

b. Minor to moderate joint spall was observed in numerous transverse and longitudinal joints.

c. Narrow (less than 1/8”) longitudinal cracks were noticed at the approximate mid points of the panels.

d. Turf build-up on the runway edges restricts runoff from runway.

e. Joint sealant materials have deteriorated to a point of being nearly non-existent. Significant vegetative growth is occurring in the joints to a degree that it impacts runway operation if not routinely addressed by USDA maintenance staff. The failure to address this issue could potentially result in damage to aircraft.

f. The current magnetic bearing of the runway is off by approximately 9 degrees.

g. Severe deterioration of runway indicator markings, no centerline or edge markings.

7.3.2 Runway 13/31 Recommendations

a. Repair all joints across the width and length of the runway and all transverse cracks wider than 1/8 inch. Joint repairs shall be made as follows:

i. Remove all existing joint material by ploughing or saw cutting.

ii. Sawcut joint faces to provide competent concrete for sealant adherence.

iii. Water/sand blast joint faces.

iv. Install backer rod 1/8 inch wider than joint opening.

v. Fill joint with a hot applied joint sealant.

b. Remove turf build up adjacent to runway and grade to drain freely.

c. Provide new pavement markings as indicated on Drawing C300.

d. Designate runway as 14/32 to address changes in magnetic bearing.

7.4 Runway 18/36

7.4.1 Deficiencies

Runway 18/36 (north/south) parallels the western border of the facility. Overall, the concrete is in good condition. Jointing in the pavement is uniform with an approximate joint spacing of 20 x 20 feet extending from the edge of the runway to within approximately 12 feet of the centerline. Joints spacing along each side of the centerline is 12 feet x 20 feet. Joints in the bull nose areas are made at angles with the runway joints.

Noted deficiencies during the inspection are as follows:

a. Transverse cracking (greater than 1/4”) of several panels was noted in approximately 10 panels.

b. Minor to moderate joint spall was observed in numerous transverse and longitudinal joints.

c. Narrow (less than 1/4”) longitudinal cracks were noticed at the approximate mid points of the panels.

d. Turf build-up on the runway edges restricts runoff from runway.

e. Joint sealant materials have deteriorated to a point of being nearly non-existent. Significant vegetative growth is occurring in the joints to a degree that it impacts runway operation if not routinely addressed by USDA maintenance staff. The failure to address this issue could potentially result in damage to aircraft.

f. Irregular shaped panel at the northwest intersection with Runway 9/27 severely cracked.

g. Significant cracking occurring at southern end of runway near storm drain lines under runway.

h. Irregular/uneven pavement match at southern end of runway over storm drain line.

7.4.2 Runway 18/36 Recommendations

Due to minimal airfield traffic and high maintenance costs, Runway 18/36 will be left as is. The facility will continue to perform routine maintenance on the runway at quarterly intervals.

7.5 Runway 9/27

7.5.1 Deficiencies

Runway 9/27 (east/west) is located along the southern border of the facility. This runway is currently being used by the local sheriff’s department as a vehicular training area. Overall, the concrete is in good condition. Jointing in the pavement is uniform with an approximate joint spacing of 20 x 20 feet extending from the edge of the runway to within approximately 12 feet of the centerline. Joints spacing along each side of the centerline is 12 feet x 20 feet. Joints in the bull nose areas are made at angles with the runway joints.

Noted deficiencies during the inspection are as follows:

a. Transverse cracking (greater than 1/4”) of several panels was noted in approximately 10 panels.

b. Minor to moderate joint spall was observed in numerous transverse and longitudinal joints.

c. Narrow (less than 1/4”) longitudinal cracks were noticed at the approximate mid points of the panels.

d. Turf build-up on the runway edges restricts runoff from runway.

e. Joint sealant materials have deteriorated to a point of being nearly non-existent. Significant vegetative growth is occurring in the joints to a degree that it impacts runway operation if not routinely addressed by USDA maintenance staff. The failure to address this issue could potentially result in damage to aircraft.

f. Irregular shaped panel at the northwest intersection with Runway 18/36 severely cracked.

7.5.2 Recommendations

Due to airfield minimal airfield traffic and high maintenance costs, Runway 9/27 will be re-striped. The facility will perform routine maintenance on the runway at quarterly intervals.

7.6 Taxiway “A”

7.6.1 Deficiencies

Taxiway “A” provides access from the northern end of the flightline apron to Runway 18/36. The overall concrete is in good condition. Jointing in the pavement is uniform with an approximate joint spacing of 20 x 20 feet extending the entire width of the taxiway. Joints at the intersections with Runway 18/36 and the flightline are made at angles with the taxiway joints.

Noted Deficiencies are as follows:

a. Transverse cracking (greater than 1/4”) of several panels was noted in approximately 10 panels.

b. Minor to moderate joint spall was observed in numerous transverse and longitudinal joints.

c. Narrow (less than 1/4”) longitudinal cracks were noticed at the approximate mid points of the panels.

d. Turf build-up on the runway edges restricts runoff from runway.

e. Joint sealant materials have deteriorated to a point of being nearly non-existent.

Significant vegetative growth is occurring in the joints to a degree that it impacts runway operation if not routinely addressed by USDA maintenance staff. The failure to address this issue could potentially result in damage to aircraft.

f. Currently the APHIS facility uses Taxiway “A” as a storage location for miscellaneous items. This will conflict with taxi operations.

7.6.2 Recommendations

Taxiway “A” will remain as is, facility will perform quarterly maintenance to address vegetative joint growth.

7.7 Taxiway “B”

7.7.1 Deficiencies

Taxiway “B” connects the northern end of the flightline apron to the northern end of Runway 14/32. The overall concrete is in good condition. Jointing in the pavement is uniform with an approximate joint spacing of 20 x 20 feet extending the entire width of the taxiway. Joints intersecting with Runway 14/32 and the flightline are made at angles with the taxiway joints.

Noted Deficiencies are as follows:

a. Transverse cracking (greater than 1/4”) of several panels was noted in approximately 10 panels.

b. Minor to moderate joint spall was observed in numerous transverse and longitudinal joints.

c. Narrow (less than 1/4”) longitudinal cracks were noticed at the approximate mid points of the panels.

d. Turf build-up on the runway edges restricts runoff from runway.

e. Joint sealant materials have deteriorated to a point of being nearly non-existent.

Significant vegetative growth is occurring in the joints to a degree that it impacts runway operation if not routinely addressed by USDA maintenance staff. The failure to address this issue could potentially result in damage to aircraft.

7.7.2 Recommendations

a. The taxiway will be re-striped to maintain its full width.

b. Joint repairs will be made across the full width and length of the taxiway.

All transverse cracks wider than 1/8 inch. Joint repairs shall be made as follows:

i. Remove all existing joint material by ploughing or saw cutting.

ii. Sawcut joint faces to provide competent concrete for sealant adherence.

iii. Water/sand blast joint faces.

iv. Install backer rod 1/8 inch wider than joint opening.

v. Fill joint with a hot applied joint sealant.

c. Remove turf build up adjacent to the taxiway and grade freely to drain.

d. Provide new pavement markings as indicated on Drawing C300.

7.8 Taxiway “C”

7.8.1 Deficiencies

Taxiway “C” connects the middle of the flightline apron to the middle of Runway 14/32. The overall concrete is in good condition. Jointing in the pavement is uniform with an approximate joint spacing of 20 x 20 feet extending the entire width of the taxiway. Joints intersecting with Runway 14/32 and the flightline are made at angles with the taxiway joints.

Noted Deficiencies are as follows:

a. Transverse cracking (greater than 1/4”) of several panels was noted in approximately 10 panels.

b. Minor to moderate joint spall was observed in numerous transverse and longitudinal joints.

c. Narrow (less than 1/4”) longitudinal cracks were noticed at the approximate mid points of the panels.

d. Turf build-up on the runway edges restricts runoff from runway.

e. Joint sealant materials have deteriorated to a point of being nearly non-existent.

Significant vegetative growth is occurring in the joints to a degree that it impacts runway operation if not routinely addressed by USDA maintenance staff. The failure to address this issue could potentially result in damage to aircraft.

7.8.2 Recommendations

a. The taxiway will be re-striped to maintain its full width.

b. Repair all joints for the full width and length of the taxiway and all transverse cracks wider than 1/8 inch. Joint repairs shall be made as follows:

i. Remove all existing joint material by ploughing or saw cutting.

ii. Sawcut joint faces to provide competent concrete for sealant adherence.

iii. Water/sand blast joint faces.

iv. Install backer rod 1/8 inch wider than joint opening.

v. Fill joint with a hot applied joint sealant.

c. Remove turf build up adjacent to the taxiway and grade freely to drain.

d. Provide new pavement markings as indicated on Drawing C300.

7.9 Taxiway “D”

7.9.1 Deficiencies

Taxiway “D” connects the middle of the flightline apron to the middle of Runway 14/32. The overall concrete is in good condition. Jointing in the pavement is uniform with an approximate joint spacing of 12 x 20 feet extending the entire width of the taxiway. Joints intersecting with Runway 14/32 and the flightline are made at angles with the taxiway joints.

Noted Deficiencies are as follows:

a. Transverse cracking (greater than 1/4”) of several panels was noted in approximately 10 panels.

b. Minor to moderate joint spall was observed in numerous transverse and longitudinal joints.

c. Narrow (less than 1/4”) longitudinal cracks were noticed at the approximate mid points of the panels.

d. Turf build-up on the runway edges restricts runoff from runway.

e. Joint sealant materials have deteriorated to a point of being nearly non-existent.

Significant vegetative growth is occurring in the joints to a degree that it impacts runway operation if not routinely addressed by USDA maintenance staff. The failure to address this issue could potentially result in damage to aircraft.

7.9.2 Recommendations

7.9.2.1 Taxiway “D” between the Flightline and Runway 14/32

a. The taxiway will be re-striped to maintain its full width.

b. Repair all joints for the full width and length of the taxiway and all transverse cracks wider than 1/8 inch. Joint repairs shall be made as follows:

i. Remove all existing joint material by ploughing or saw cutting.

ii. Sawcut joint faces to provide competent concrete for sealant adherence.

iii. Water/sand blast joint faces.

iv. Install backer rod 1/8 inch wider than joint opening.

v. Fill joint with a hot applied joint sealant.

c. Remove turf build up adjacent to the taxiway and grade freely to drain.

d. Provide new pavement markings as indicated on Drawing C300.

7.9.2.2 Taxiway “D” between Runway 14/32 and 18/36

Taxiway “D” will remain as is, the facility will perform quarterly maintenance to address vegetative joint growth.

7.10 Taxiway “E”

7.10.1 Deficiencies

Taxiway “E” connects the southern end of the flightline apron to the southeastern end of Runway 14/32. The overall concrete is in good condition. Jointing in the pavement is uniform with an approximate joint spacing of 20 x 20 feet extending the entire width of the taxiway. Joints intersecting with Runway 14/32 and the flightline are made at angles with the taxiway joints.

Noted Deficiencies are as follows:

a. Transverse cracking (greater than 1/4”) of several panels was noted in approximately 10 panels.

b. Minor to moderate joint spall was observed in numerous transverse and longitudinal joints.

c. Narrow (less than 1/4”) longitudinal cracks were noticed at the approximate mid points of the panels.

d. Turf build-up on the runway edges restricts runoff from runway.

e. Joint sealant materials have deteriorated to a point of being nearly non-existent.

Significant vegetative growth is occurring in the joints to a degree that it impacts runway operation if not routinely addressed by USDA maintenance staff. The failure to address this issue could potentially result in damage to aircraft.

7.10.2 Recommendations

a. The taxiway will be re-striped to maintain its full width.

b. Repair all joints for full width and length of taxiway and cracks wider than 1/8 inch. Joint repairs shall be made as follows:

i. Remove all existing joint material by ploughing or saw cutting.

ii. Sawcut joint faces to provide competent concrete for sealant adherence.

iii. Water/sand blast joint faces.

iv. Install backer rod 1/8 inch wider than joint opening.

v. Fill joint with a hot applied joint sealant.

c. Remove turf build up adjacent to the taxiway and grade freely to drain.

d. Provide new pavement markings as indicated on Drawing C300.

7.11 Flightline

7.11.1 Deficiencies

The flightline connects the airplane hangar to Taxiways “A”, “B”, “C”, “D” and “E”. The overall concrete is in good condition. Jointing in the pavement is uniform with an approximate joint spacing of 12 x 20 feet extending approximately 96’ from the southwest side of the flightline. The 12 x 20 feet joint spacing picks up again at the southeast portion of the runway extending from taxiway “E” to northeastern edge of the flightline. The remainder of the flightline consists of approximate joint spacing of remainder of the flightline is 20 x 20 feet.

Joints intersecting the taxiways and joint spacing changes are made at angles with the intersecting joints.

Noted Deficiencies are as follows:

a. Transverse cracking (greater than 1/4”) of several panels was noted in approximately 10 panels.

b. Minor to moderate joint spall was observed in numerous transverse and longitudinal joints.

c. Narrow (less than 1/4”) longitudinal cracks were noticed at the approximate mid points of the panels.

d. Turf build-up on the runway edges restricts runoff from runway.

e. Joint sealant materials have deteriorated to a point of being nearly non-existent.

Significant vegetative growth is occurring in the joints to a degree that it impacts runway operation if not routinely addressed by USDA maintenance staff. The failure to address this issue could potentially result in damage to aircraft.

f. Currently the facility has PEMB buildings in portions of the flightline and other portions are used as POV parking.

7.11.2 Recommendations

Specific portions of Flightline are currently under repair and will require no additional work. Areas not repaired will continue to receive routine quarterly maintenance to control vegetative growth. It is the recommendation of this report to provide markings as indicated on Drawing C300.

8 Runway Safety and Operational Issues

MAB, having no control tower, operates with visual aircraft approach only. This potentially produces conflicts between aircraft and maintenance ground crews and contractors. To facilitate safe airfield operations and avoid conflicts, JMc recommends the implementation of Standard Operational Procedures (SOP). These procedures are described below and indicated on Drawing C300.

a. Provide lockable gates on all access points directly connecting Moore Road to any part of the airfield.

b. Require all approaching aircraft to approach and land along the magnetic bearing of the runway.

c. Provide warning signs at internal access points to the airfield.

d. Require all maintenance and/or contractors to maintain radio communication with approaching pilots.

e. Require maintenance personnel and/or contractors to coordinate all work with airfield supervisor.

f. Require all maintenance and/or contractors to access and exit runways using a pre-determined route.

g. Ensure all maintenance personnel and/or contractors understand that aircraft have priority over ground equipment.

h. Ensure all maintenance personnel and/or contractors on the airfield are clearly marked with flags and flashing lights.

i. Ensure all aircraft and vehicles stop at the holdfast positions on taxiways and look for oncoming aircraft before entering the active runway.

j. Provide new safety signage at the fueling station and provide stripping designating the fueling station.

9. Airfield Drainage

Airfield drainage consists of a combination of storm drain inlets, underground pipe, and surface drainage away from the runway. The gross drainage flow is from the northwest (Elevation 215) to the southeast and discharges into a drainage canal (Elevation 189) south of the flightline. Isolated areas on the west side of Runway18/36 and south of Runway 9/27 appear to sheet flow west and south, respectively, off the site.

Transverse slopes on the runways are approximately 1.5 to 2 percent from the centerline of the runway to the edge of pavement for all runways. Longitudinal slope on Runway 18/36 slopes each way from the approximate mid-point at an approximate rate of 0.2 percent. Runway 9/27 slopes from west to east with and approximate slope of 0.5 percent.

Runway 13/31 slopes from north to south with an approximate longitudinal slope of 0.4 percent.

Storm drain inlets with underground drains are located approximately 3-5 feet from the edge of the runways with the underground drains paralleling the runways for the most part.

The top elevations of the inlets are typically within 0.1 feet, vertically, with the adjacent edge of the runway. The proximity of the inlets to the runway edge, along with the minimal elevation difference, produces an inefficient system for collecting runoff from the pavement into the inlets. This inefficiency, however, is compensated by the natural ground relief perpendicular to the pavement and the longitudinal slope of the runway. Overall, the existing conditions adequately drains the pavements and adjacent turfed areas. No areas of the runways, taxiways or infield appeared to be holding water and there were no surface indications that the pavement was suffering from saturated base conditions.

There is a significant turf build up along the pavement edges that could temporarily trap water at the edge. This could be mitigated by grading the edges of the runway.

10. Runway Designations

FAA designates runways numerically at each end. These designations represent the heading used for takeoffs and landings on the runway. By FAA rules, runways are numbered 1-36, according to the points on a compass, reading to the nearest 10 degrees and dropping the last digit. The magnetic bearing of a particular runway or area can change as the earth’s magnetic field changes. Pursuant to FAA guidance, the runway designation is only modified when the current magnetic bearing is more than 6-degrees from its designation. Each of the current runway bearings was determined and found to be in excess of the six-degree threshold. Consequently, the designations are modified as indicated in Table 10.1 below.

Table 10.1

Runway Designation Changes

Runway Current Designation Current Magnetic Bearing

Proposed Designation

18/36 189.36°/9.36° 19/1 9/27 279.36°/99.36° 10/28 13/31 144.35°/324.35° 14/32

11. Estimated Direct Cost of Recommended Repairs

The direct cost assumes all repairs were made under a single contract with a single mobilization. Estimated repair costs are provided for the joint repairs, pavement markings, signage and drainage improvements discussed in Section 7. A summary of these costs is presented in Table 11.1 below, details of the estimates are provided in Appendix A. These estimates are rounded to the nearest 1,000 dollars. The total estimated cost for all repairs if made under a single contract, is $2,345,000.

These estimated costs consist of the contractors direct cost, a single mobilization, supervision, overhead, insurance, contingences, project location factors and degree of difficulty factors, profit, and bonds are based upon unit costs presented in RS MEANS “Heavy Construction Costs, 2021” to the extent the information was available. Location factors are geographical factors based on the location of the work. Degree of difficulty factors primarily reflect the lost work time required when working on active airfields

Table 11.1 Estimated Direct Cost of Recommended Repairs

Description of Work Estimated Cost Runway 14/32 Joint Repair $ Taxiway “B” Joint Repair $ Taxiway “C” Joint Repair $ Taxiway “D” Joint Repair $ Taxiway “E” Joint Repair $

Runway 14/32 Pavement Markings $ Taxiway “B” Pavement Markings $ Taxiway “C” Pavement Markings $ Taxiway “D” Pavement Markings $ Taxiway “E” Pavement Markings $

Flightline Pavement Markings $ Runway 10/28 Pavement Markings $

Runway 14/32 Drainage $ Taxiway “B” Drainage $ Taxiway “C” Drainage $ Taxiway “D” Drainage $ Taxiway “E” Drainage $

Flightline Drainage $ Access gates and Signage $

Total Direct Cost for All Repairs $

12. 10-Year Maintenance Plan

All the repairs discussed in this report are maintenance repairs and will be addressed during the proposed 10-Year Maintenance Plan. Due to budgeting constraints, the recommended repairs will be addressed with multiple projects funded over several years.

Projects will be composed of two types; (a) projects of $150,000 or less which will be procured locally with small business and (b) projects greater than $150,000 but less than $1,000,000.

The direct costs of the projects are provided in Table 11.1. These costs assume competitive bids with a single mobilization. The projects listed below are assumed to occur in a single fiscal year, i.e., Project 1 in FY1, Project 2 in FY2, etc. Due to this, inflation costs at a rate of 5% per year are applied to each project after FY1 along with a size factor increase as indicated.

Project 1, FY1 Description Cost

Access Gates and Signage Direct Cost $

Total Direct Cost $ Project Size Factor (20%) $ Estimated Project Cost $

Project 2, FY2 Description Cost

Drainage Improvements (Grading) for Runway 14/32, Taxiways B, C, D, and E, and Flightline

Runway 14/32 Direct Cost $ Taxiway B Direct Cost $ Taxiway C Direct Cost $ Taxiway D Direct Cost $ Taxiway E Direct Cost $ Flightline Direct Cost $

Total Direct Cost $ Inflation (5%) $

Project Size Factor (10%) $ Estimated Project Cost $279,500

Project 3, FY3

Repair joints on one half of runway 14/32

Direct Cost $ Total Direct Cost $

Inflation (10.25%) $

Project 4, FY4

Repair joints on Runway half of runway 14/32

Direct Cost $ Total Direct Cost $

Inflation (15.76%) $

Project 5, FY5 Description Cost

Repair Joints on Taxiways B Taxiway B Direct Cost $

Total Direct Cost $ Inflation (21.16%) $

Project Size Factor (10%) $ Estimated Project Cost $

Project 6, FY6 Description Cost

Repair Joints on Taxiways C Taxiway C Direct Cost $

Total Direct Cost $ Inflation (22.22%) $

Project Size Factor (10%) $ Estimated Project Cost $

Project 7, FY7 Description Cost

Repair Joints on Taxiways D Taxiway D Direct Cost $

Total Direct Cost $ Inflation (23.32%) $

Project Size Factor (10%) $ Estimated Project Cost $

Project 8, FY8 Description Cost

Repair Joints on Taxiways E Taxiway D Direct Cost $

Total Direct Cost $ Inflation (24.5%) $

Project 9, FY9 Description Cost

Pavement Markings for runway 14/32 and 10/28 Runway 14/32 $ Runway 10/28 $

Total Direct Cost $ Inflation (25.72%) $

Project 10, FY10

Pavement Markings for Taxiway B, C, D, E and Flightline

Taxiway B Direct Cost $ Taxiway C Direct Cost $ Taxiway D Direct Cost $ Taxiway E Direct Cost $ Flightline Direct Cost $

Total Direct Cost $ Inflation (27%) $

13. Detailed Specifications and Drawings

Detailed drawings for airfield repairs are provided in the Drawings section of this report. Detailed specifications for pavement markings and joint repairs are provided as Appendices B and C. Additional specifications and drawings will be provided as required at final submittal.

-End of Report-

Drawings

MOORE AIR BASE

USDA-APHIS-PPQ

RUNWAY STUDY

EDINBURG, TEXAS

PPM

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION

SHEET

DATEc P.A.

FIRM

U

NO.

DEPM

SAFETY & HEALTH

REAL PROPERTY

A

DATE

PROJECT NO.

SUSDA

BY

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

OF

THE

DESIGNER

PROJECT MANAGER

JOB #

CHECKED BY

A-E FIRM

P.O. BOX 513, GREENWOOD, MISSISSIPPI - (662) 455-4943

Johnson M Adams

ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS PLANNING SURVEYING MANAGEMENT

Agricultural

Service Research

USDA APHIS-PPQ

MOORE AIR BASE

RUNWAY STUDY

EDINBURG, TEXAS

TITLE SHEET

T100

X XXX/XX/XX

THT

THT

DRL

MID SOUTH AREA

STONEVILLE, MS4121-E

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

NO SCALEVICINITY MAP

NORTH

DRAWING NO.SHEET NO. TITLE

T-100 C100 C101 C102 C200 C201 C202 C203 C204 C205 C300 C301 C302 C400

TITLE SHEET

OVERALL SITE PLAN

OVERALL JOINT REPAIR PLAN

TYPICAL JOINT LAYOUT PLANS

OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN

AREA 'A' DRAINAGE

AREA 'B' DRAINAGE

AREA 'C' DRAINAGE

AREA 'D' DRAINAGE

AREA 'E' DRAINAGE

STRIPPING PLAN

STRIPPING DETAILS

TYPICAL JOINT DETAILS AND REPAIR

GATE DETAILS

INDEX OF DRAWINGS

EDINBURG

EL PASO

SAN ANTONIO

LAREDO

CORPUS CHRISTI

GALVESTON

ORANGE

HOUSTON

AUSTIN

DALLASFT WORTH

LUBBOCK

WICHITA FALLS

AMARILLO

PROJECT LOCATION

MOOR AIR BASE

AutoCAD SHX Text T E X A S

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X X

X X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

Zone (2)

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

OFZ

PPM

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION

SHEET

DATEc P.A.

FIRM

U

NO.

DEPM

SAFETY & HEALTH

REAL PROPERTY

A

DATE

PROJECT NO.

SUSDA

BY

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

OF

THE

DESIGNER

PROJECT MANAGER

JOB #

CHECKED BY

A-E FIRM

P.O. BOX 513, GREENWOOD, MISSISSIPPI - (662) 455-4943

Johnson M Adams

ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS PLANNING SURVEYING MANAGEMENT

Z:

\20

Jo bs \41

-E

US

DA

R un wa y S

t. -

A ph is Mo or e A ir B as e\0 7 W or kin g F old er \C ivi l\C

0.d wg A ug

, 2

2 - 9:

am

Agricultural

Service Research

USDA APHIS-PPQ

MOORE AIR BASE

RUNWAY STUDY

EDINBURG, TEXAS

OVERALL SITE PLAN

C100

X XXX/XX/XX

THT

THT

DRL

MID SOUTH AREA

STONEVILLE, MS4121-E

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

SCALE: 1''= 300'-0"

0 300'300' 150'

SCALE:

OVERALL SITE PLAN

1" = 300'

C100

NORTH

EXISTING FENCE

OBJECT FREE ZONE

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA

LEGEND

GRAPHIC SCALE

TAXIWAY 'B'

TAXIWAY 'C'

TAXIWAY 'D'

TAXIWAY 'A'

X

TAXIW

AY 'E'

TAXIWAY 'D'

MOORE RD.

HANGAR

N.

M

OO

RE

FI

EL

D

RD

EXISTING ROAD

WATER DRAINAGE DISCHARGE

8TH ST.

MOORE RD.

OFZ

RSA

FUEL STATION

FLIGHTLINE

FLIGHTLINE

FLIGHTLINE APRON

400'

400'

240' 240'

RUNWAY OBJECT FREE ZONE (ROFZ)

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA)

RUNWAY CENTERLINE

LANDING THRESHOLD

240'-0"

240'-0"

LANDING THRESHOLD

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X X

X X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

PPM

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION

SHEET

DATEc P.A.

FIRM

U

NO.

DEPM

SAFETY & HEALTH

REAL PROPERTY

A

DATE

PROJECT NO.

SUSDA

BY

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

OF

THE

DESIGNER

PROJECT MANAGER

JOB #

CHECKED BY

A-E FIRM

P.O. BOX 513, GREENWOOD, MISSISSIPPI - (662) 455-4943

Johnson M Adams

ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS PLANNING SURVEYING MANAGEMENT

Z:

\20

Jo bs \41

-E

US

DA

R un wa y S

t. -

A ph is Mo or e A ir B as e\0 7 W or kin g F old er \C ivi l\C

1.d wg A ug

, 2

2 - 9:

am

Agricultural

Service Research

USDA APHIS-PPQ

MOORE AIR BASE

RUNWAY STUDY

EDINBURG, TEXAS

OVERALL JOINT REPAIR PLAN

C101

X XXX/XX/XX

THT

THT

DRL

MID SOUTH AREA

STONEVILLE, MS4121-E

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

SCALE: 1''= 300'-0"

0 300'300' 150'

SCALE:

OVERALL JOINT REPAIR PLAN

1" = 300'

C101

NORTH

EXISTING FENCE

AREA OF JOINTS TO BE REPAIRED

LEGEND

GRAPHIC SCALE

X

TAXIWAY 'B'

TAXIWAY 'C'

TAXIWAY 'D'

TAXIWAY 'A'

TAXIW

AY 'E'

TAXIWAY 'D'

MOORE RD.

HANGAR

N.

M

OO

RE

FI

EL

D

RD

EXISTING

ROAD

DISCHARGE

8TH ST.

MOORE RD.

C102

C102

C102

C102

FUEL STATION

FLIGHTLINE

FLIGHTLINE

FLIGHTLINE APRON

98'

98'

98'298'

50'

PPM

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION

SHEET

DATEc P.A.

FIRM

U

NO.

DEPM

SAFETY & HEALTH

REAL PROPERTY

A

DATE

PROJECT NO.

SUSDA

BY

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

OF

THE

DESIGNER

PROJECT MANAGER

JOB #

CHECKED BY

A-E FIRM

P.O. BOX 513, GREENWOOD, MISSISSIPPI - (662) 455-4943

Johnson M Adams

ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS PLANNING SURVEYING MANAGEMENT

Z:

\20

Jo bs \41

-E

US

DA

R un wa y S

t. -

A ph is Mo or e A ir B as e\0 7 W or kin g F old er \C ivi l\C

2.d wg A ug

, 2

2 - 9:

am

Agricultural

Service Research

USDA APHIS-PPQ

MOORE AIR BASE

RUNWAY STUDY

EDINBURG, TEXAS

TYPICAL JOINT LAYOUT PLANS

C102

X XXX/XX/XX

THT

THT

DRL

MID SOUTH AREA

STONEVILLE, MS4121-E

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

SCALE:

14/32 TAXIWAY 'B' INTERSECTION

1" =50'

C102

GRAPHIC SCALE

20'x20' JOINT LAYOUT, TYP.

(2) 12'x20' JOINT LAYOUT @

CENTERLINE OF RUNWAY, TYP.

TAXIWAY 'B'

RUNWAY 14

/32

RUNWAY 18/36

SCALE:

14/32 TAXIWAY 'C' INTERSECTION

1" =50'

C102

20'x20' JOINT LAYOUT, TYP.

(2) 12'x20' JOINT LAYOUT @

CENTERLINE OF RUNWAY, TYP.

RUNWAY 14/32

TAXIWAY 'C'

SCALE:

TAXIWAY 'D' FLIGHTLINE INTERSECTION

1" =50'

C102

20'x20' JOINT LAYOUT, TYP.

20'x20' JOINT LAYOUT, TYP.

(4)12'x20' JOINT LAYOUT, TYP.

12'x20' JOINT LAYOUT @

CENTERLINE OF RUNWAY, TYP.

SCALE:1"=50'-0"

0 50'50' 25'

TA

XI

W

AY

'D

(8)12'x20' JOINT LAYOUT, TYP.

RUNWAY 9/2

RUNWAY 14/32

TAXIWAY 'E'

20'x20' JOINT

LAYOUT, TYP.

(2) 12'x20' JOINT LAYOUT

@ CENTERLINE OF

RUNWAY, TYP.

20'x20' JOINT LAYOUT, TYP.

FLIGHTLINE

SCALE:

14/32 TAXIWAY 'E' INTERSECTION

1" =50'

C102

LIMITS OF JOINT REPAIR, TYP.

60'-0"

'-0

'-0

LIMITS OF JOINT REPAIR, TYP.

'-0

LIMITS OF JOINT REPAIR, TYP.

'-0

'-0

'-0

LIMITS OF JOINT REPAIR, TYP.

AREA OF JOINTS TO BE REPAIRED

LEGEND

COCO

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

X

195195

205 205 205

205 205

210 210

210 210 210 210

210 210 210

215 215 215

215 215

215215

220220

X X

X X

X X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

211 209 208 207 206

197198

199 198

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

N.

M

OO

RE

FI

EL

D

RD

PPM

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTION

SHEET

DATEc P.A.

FIRM

U

NO.

DEPM

SAFETY & HEALTH

REAL PROPERTY

A

DATE

PROJECT NO.

SUSDA

BY

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

OF

THE

DESIGNER

PROJECT MANAGER

JOB #

CHECKED BY

A-E FIRM

P.O. BOX 513, GREENWOOD, MISSISSIPPI - (662) 455-4943

Johnson M Adams

ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS PLANNING SURVEYING MANAGEMENT

C:

\U se rs\ sm ar sh all

.JM

CF

IR

M\

Ap pD ata \Lo ca l\T em p\A cP ub lis h_

\C

0- C2

.dw g A ug

, 2

2 - 9:

am

Agricultural

Service Research

USDA APHIS-PPQ

MOORE AIR BASE

RUNWAY STUDY

EDINBURG, TEXAS

OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN

C200

X XXX/XX/XX

THT

THT

DRL

MID SOUTH AREA

STONEVILLE, MS

4121-E

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

FENCE

STORM DRAIN

DRAIN INLET

ASSUMED PIPE ROUTE, SURVEY COULD

NOT VERIFY

DIRECTION OF FLOW

MAJOR CONTOURS

MINOR CONTOURS

LEGEND

X

SD

DI-12

SCALE: 1''= 300'-0"

0 300'300' 150'

SCALE:

OVERALL DRAINAGE MAP

1" = 300'

C200

NORTH

GRAPHIC SCALE

KEY PLAN

RU

NA

W

AY

/36

RUNAWAY 9/27

RUNAWAY 14/32

NO…