DRO Overflow Parking Lot Engineers Design Memo Final (1).pdf

DURANGO-LA PLATA COUNTY

AIRPORT PARKING LOT EXPANSION

100% ENGINEER’S DESIGN MEMO

December 21st, 2023

Prepared By:

Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc

934 Main Ave. Unit C

Durango, CO 81303

Phone: (970) 385-4546

12/21/23

Table of Contents Project Scope of Work

Basis of Design Summary

Anticipated Applicable Design Standards

APPENDIX A: ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS (OPCC) .............. 4-5

APPENDIX B: DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ....................................................................... 6-24

APPENDIX C: DRAINAGE REPORT .......................................................................................... 24-66

APPENDIX D: MEETING MINUTES ......................................................................................... 67-91

Project Scope of Work

The La Plata County Airport Parking Lot Expansion project consists of designing, expanding, and paving the Upper Overflow Lot which is located east of the Credit Card Lot (see Figure 1 for location). This lot currently has a gravel surface made from excess millings. The proposed design will pave and expand the parking lot southeast to accommodate extra parking spaces. To do this, part of the perimeter fence will be removed and replaced to allow for adequate spacing between parked cars and the fence.

Figure 1 – Project Location Map

Basis of Design Summary

This project will optimize the area to provide the most parking spaces while keeping it user friendly. By expanding the site on the southeast side, extra spaces will be available. A drainage study was also conducted to determine historic and proposed condition runoffs from the site.

Anticipated Applicable Design Standards

The parking lot project will meet or exceed current La Plata County standards for off-site parking in regard to dimensions of spaces and drive aisles. Accessible parking will meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for slopes and access requirements.

Additionally, the project will meet FAA requirements for buffer from driving surfaces to the security fence. The proposed security fencing will meet FAA requirements as well.

APPENDIX A: ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION

COSTS (OPCC)

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QTY TOTAL COST

GENERAL

1 Mobilization/General Conditions (3%) LS 0.03 1 $33,140

2 Clearing and Grubbing (2%) LS 0.02 1 $22,093

3 Construction Surveying (2%) LS 0.02 1 $22,093

4 Record Drawings (1%) LS 0.01 1 $11,047

5 Quality Control / Testing (1%) LS 0.01 1 $11,047

Storm Water Management (Pre-Construction and During

Construction) (2%)

LS 0.02 1 $22,093

Subtotal $121,513

PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS

7 Excavation CY $22 2340 $51,480

8 Embankment CY $15 305 $4,575

9 Asphalt Removal SY $87 360 $31,320

10 Removal of Culverts EA $500 2 $1,000

11 Removal of Light Poles EA $750 2 $1,500

12 Asphalt SY $57 8750 $498,750

13a Class 6 Base SY $12 9167 $110,005

13b Class 2 Base/Millings SY $10 9167 $91,670

14 3-ft Concrete Pan LF $50 448 $22,400

15 Curb and Gutter LF $40 1396 $55,840

16 Pavement Marking Paint (waterborne) SF $0.50 1880 $940

17 Removal of Fence LF $15.00 727 $10,905

18 Fencing LF $25.00 793 $19,825

19 Remove and Relocate Double Swing Gate EA $5,000.00 1 $5,000

20a Signage (Tubular Steel Support) EA $750.00 2 $1,500

20b Signage (Light Pole Mounted) EA $400.00 11 $4,400

21a Lighting Unit Type 1 EA $5,651.00 3 $16,953

21b Lighting Unit Type 2 EA $6,366.00 3 $19,098

21c Lighting Unit Type 3 EA $5,651.00 1 $5,651

21d Light Foundation Design Special EA $1,500 7 $10,500

22a 2" Non-Metallic Conduit LF $8.00 1013 $8,104

22b Underground Wire 1/C 6 AWG LF $1.60 3522 $5,635

23 Native Seeding SY $2.50 2080 $5,200

24 Topsoil CY $20.00 595 $11,900

Subtotal $994,152

Credit Card Lot Existing ADA Parking Area

25 Removal of Existing Concrete SF $15 896 $13,440

26 Removal of Curb and Gutter LF $12 138 $1,656

9 Sawcut/Asphalt Removal SY $87 16 $1,392

7 Excavation CY $22 60 $1,320

27 Concrete Sidewalk SF $80 896 $71,680

28 Variable Height Curb LF $50 138 $6,900

12 Asphalt SY $57 16 $912

13a Class 6 Base SY $12 48 $576

13b Class 2 Base SY $10 48 $480

15 Concrete Wheel Stop EA $250 12 $3,000

16 Pavement Marking Paint (waterborne) SF $0.50 310 $155

20a Signage (Tubular Steel Support) EA $750 12 $9,000

Subtotal $110,511

$1,226,175

$122,618

$1,348,793

Add Alternate 1: Cobble Landscape Cover

30 Cobble Landscape Cover (incl deduct for Native Seed/Topsoil) SY $25 2080 $52,000

Deduct: Native Seed SY -$2.50 2080 -$5,200

Deduct: Topsoil CY -$20.00 595 -$11,900

Subtotal $34,900

SUBTOTAL

10% CONTINGENCY

TOTAL

PARKING LOT

DRO UPPER OVERFLOW PARKING LOT RECONSTRUCTION

Short Elliot Henrickson, Inc.

Opinion of Probable Cost-PRELIMINARY

12/21/2023

APPENDIX B: DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY FOR

PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS EVALUATION

DURANGO AIRPORT OVERFLOW PARKING LOT EXPANSION

LA PLATA COUNTY, COLORADO

August 11, 2023

PREPARED FOR:

Darren Stweart, P.E.

Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH)

Project No. 57724GE

Project No. 57960GE

Table of Contents

1.0 REPORT INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope of Project

2.0 FIELD STUDY

2.1 Site Description and Geomorphology

2.2 Subsurface Soil and Water Conditions

3.0 LABORATORY STUDY

4.0 PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Existing Gravel Parking Lot Evaluation

4.2 New Asphalt Surface Section Thickness Recommendations

4.3 General Pavement Recommendations

5.0 SUBGRADE STABILIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Fill Placement Recommendations

6.1.1 Aggregate Base Course Material

6.2 Grading and Drainage Comments

7.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND TESTING

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

9.0 LIMITATIONS

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ........................................................................................ Appendix B Sieve and Atterberg Limit Test Results Modified Proctor Test Results California Bearing Ratio Test Results

1.0 REPORT INTRODUCTION

This report presents our geotechnical engineering study and pavement thickness design recommendations for the Durango Airport Overflow Parking Lot Expansion project in La Plata County, Colorado. This report was requested by Mr. Darren Stewart, P.E., of Short Elliot and Hendrickson, Inc., and was prepared in general accordance with our proposal dated March 13, 2023, Proposal No. 23111P.

As outlined within our proposal for services for this project the client is responsible for appropriate distribution of this report to other design professionals and/or governmental agencies unless specific arrangements have been made with us for distribution.

Geotechnical engineering is a discipline which provides insight into natural conditions and site characteristics such as; subsurface soil and water conditions, soil strength, swell (expansion) potential, consolidation (settlement) potential, and often slope stability considerations. The information provided by the geotechnical engineer is utilized by many people including the project owner, architect or designer, structural engineer, civil engineer, the project builder and others. The information is used to help develop a design and subsequently implement construction strategies that are appropriate for the subsurface soil and water conditions, and slope stability considerations.

We are available to discuss any aspect of this report with those who are unfamiliar with the recommendations, concepts, and techniques provided below.

This geotechnical engineering report is the beginning of a process involving the geotechnical engineering consultant on any project. It is imperative that the geotechnical engineer be consulted throughout the design and construction process to verify the implementation of the geotechnical engineering recommendations provided in this report. Often the design has not been started or has only been initiated at the time of the preparation of the geotechnical engineering study. Changes in the proposed design must be communicated to the geotechnical engineer so that we have the opportunity to tailor our recommendations as needed based on the proposed site development and structure design.

The following outline provides a synopsis of the various portions of this report;

Sections 1.0 provides an introduction and an establishment of our scope of service.

Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this report present our geotechnical engineering field and laboratory studies Section 4.0 presents our geotechnical engineering design parameters and recommendations which are based on our engineering analysis of the data obtained.

Section 5.0 presents conceptual subgrade stabilization recommendations.

Section 6.0 provides a brief discussion of construction sequencing and strategies which may influence the geotechnical engineering characteristics of the site. Ancillary information such as some background information regarding soil corrosion and radon considerations is also presented as general reference.

Section 7.0 provides our general construction monitoring and testing recommendations.

Sections 8.0 and 9.0 provides our conclusions and limitations.

The data used to generate our recommendations are presented throughout this report and in the attached figures.

All recommendations provided within this report must be followed in order to achieve the intended performance of the pavement system that is supported by the site soil.

1.1 Scope of Project

We understand that the proposed project consists of paving and expansion of the existing overflow parking lot on the south side of the airport terminal.

Our geotechnical engineering study for the project consists of evaluating the current gravel section and underlying subgrade materials for design of the new/reconstructed asphalt paved parking lot.

2.0 FIELD STUDY

2.1 Site Description and Geomorphology

The study area section of overflow parking lot is currently a milled asphalt/gravel surface. The parking lot was partially full and our observations during our field exploration were limited. Based on our limited observations, the existing parking lot surface can be generally characterized as being in fair to good condition limited areas of existing potholes and vegetation.

2.2 Subsurface Soil and Water Conditions

We advanced 5 test borings within the study area. A schematic showing the approximate boring locations is provided below as Figure 2.1. The logs of the soils encountered in our test borings are presented in Table 1.

Figure 2.1: Locations of Exploratory Borings. Adapted from SEH Conceptual site plan.

The schematic presented above was prepared using notes and field measurements obtained during our field exploration and is intended to show the approximate test boring locations for reference purposes only.

The existing gravel section consists of 3 to 12 inches of approximate asphalt millings at the surface. Beneath the asphalt millings we encountered lean clay with sand. We encountered previously placed fill in TB-1 to approximately 3 feet.

We did not encounter free subsurface water in our test borings at the time of the advancement.

We suspect that the subsurface water elevation and soil moisture conditions will be influenced by snow melt and/or precipitation and local irrigation.

The subsurface soil conditions encountered in our test borings are tabulated below in Table 1.

The tabulation presents our interpretation of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings at the time of our field work. Subsurface soil and water conditions are often variable across relatively short distances. It is likely that variable subsurface soil and water conditions will be encountered during construction. Laboratory soil classifications of samples obtained may differ from field classifications.

TB-1

TB-2

TB-3

TB-4

TB-5

Table 1 – Subsurface Conditions Summary Table

3.0 LABORATORY STUDY

The laboratory study included tests to estimate the strength, swell and consolidation potential of the soils tested. We performed the following tests on select samples obtained from the test borings.

The laboratory test results are provided in Appendix B.

• Moisture Content and Dry Density

• Sieve Analysis (Gradation)

• Atterberg Limits, Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index

• California Bearing Ratio Test

• Modified Proctor Test

A synopsis of some of our laboratory data for some of the samples tested is tabulated below.

Sample Designation

Percent Passing

#200 Sieve

Atterberg Limits

LL/PI

Moisture Content (percent)

CBR

Value R-Value

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture (percent)

TB-1 @ 0-10”

(ABC) 6 NPL/NP 0.5 - - - -

TB-5 @ 0-12”

(ABC) 7 NPL/NP 0.3 - - - -

Bulk Composite

TB-1 to TB-5

(SG)

- - 7.4 2.8 5.4* 123.6 10.2

*NOTES:

1. ABC = aggregate base course; SG = existing soil subgrade

2. NPL = No Plastic Limit; NP = Non-Plastic

3. * = Estimated R-Value based on CBR correlation

Test Boring#

Asphalt Millings

Thickness Subgrade Soil Type and Thickness

TB-1 0-10”

10-36”, Lean Clay with Sand (CL). Fill material, stiff, moist, brown 36-51” Sandy Lean Clay (CL) stiff, moist, reddish brown.

TB-2 0-6’’ 6-51” Sandy Lean Clay (CL) stiff, moist, reddish-brown.

TB-3 0-10” 10-51” Sandy Lean Clay (CL) stiff, moist, reddish-brown.

TB-4 0-3’’ 3-50” Sandy Lean Clay (CL) stiff, moist, reddish-brown.

TB-5 0-12’’ 12-52” Sandy Lean Clay (CL) stiff, moist, reddish-brown.

4.0 PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

We have provided recommendations for a pavement section thickness for a new asphalt surface overlying the existing aggregate materials. We have provided a general analysis of the existing condition and current structural number values of the existing gravel section in Section 4.1 below.

Our recommendations for the new asphalt surface are provided in Section 4.2 and general pavement recommendations are provided in Section 4.3.

4.1 Existing Gravel Parking Lot Evaluation

This section of the report provides an analysis for the existing structural number of the existing gravel section to be used as a base for the new asphalt pavement. Our analysis is intended to be general in nature as it is based on limited field and laboratory data, and is intended to provide a baseline structural number for the existing parking lot that can be utilized for the design recommendations provided in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 below. The following analysis should be considered valid only for within the proposed project area.

Based on our observations of the existing parking lot surface, we feel that the existing gravel parking lot within the project area may be considered as being in fair condition. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and laboratory test data, we feel that the following general assumptions can be made regarding the existing aggregate base course and subgrade support conditions;

• Asphalt millings ranged in thickness from approximately 3 to 12 inches. We used an average thickness across the study area of about 6 inches.

• A structural number coefficient of the existing asphalt milling material of 0.12 has been assumed.

• The subgrade soil materials encountered in our test borings consisted primarily of sandy lean clay and clayey sand. We obtained a CBR-Value of 2.8 for the subgrade soils with an approximate R-Value correlation of 5. A roadbed resilient modulus Mr equal to about 3,025 psi was calculated based on the results of the CBR test and R-Value correlation. The CBR value obtained is based on 90 percent densification of the maximum dry density as obtained from ASTM D1557/AASHTO T-180 (Modified Proctor) for the test samples obtained. The CBR and Proctor results are provided in Appendix A.

Traffic projections and corresponding 18,000 pound (18k) equivalent single axel load (ESAL) factors were not available at the time of this report. We have provided conceptual pavement section thickness recommendations for an assumed 50,000 ESALs. The civil designer must verify that the ESAL value is appropriate for this parking lot. We can update our recommendations based on alternate ESAL values, if necessary. Other assumptions utilized in our analysis are outlined below.

• Reliability Factor R(%)=90%

• Overall Standard Deviation, So=.44

• Estimated Total 18K-ESAL value(s)= 50,000

• Effective Roadbed Soils Resilient Modulus, Mr=3,025

• Change is serviceability index, Delta PSI=2.5

• Modifying Structural Layer Coefficients for aggregate base course and aggregate sub-base course layers, mi=1.0 (fair drainage conditions with 5%-25% saturation frequency)

We have estimated a pavement reliability factor (R) of 90 percent. The Federal Highway Administration defines R as “the probability that a pavement section will perform satisfactorily over the design period. It must account for uncertainties in traffic loading, environmental conditions, and construction materials. The AASHTO design method accounts for these uncertainties by incorporating a reliability level R to provide a factor of safety into the pavement design and thereby increase the probability that the pavement will perform as intended over its design life.” A higher R will result in thicker pavement section materials; however, may lead to a greater reliability in the pavement performance. The designer or project civil engineer should evaluate the desired R factor for the intended use. We can provide alternate reliability factors for the proposed pavement section upon request.

4.2 New Asphalt Surface Section Thickness Recommendations

Based on the assumptions listed above, we recommend the new pavement section consist of 4 inches of new asphalt, overlying 4 inches on new aggregate base course material, overlying the existing reconditioned asphalt milling materials. It should be noted that the values provided above are based on the subsurface information and laboratory test data that we obtained. Our assumptions and analysis are outlined below.

• Assuming an 18-kip ESAL value of 50,000, a structural number of 2.85 is required to support the estimated traffic. The new pavement section described above with yield a structural number of 2.96.

• Based on the average existing asphalt milling thickness, we have estimated an average structural number of 0.72 for the existing asphalt millings section with no asphalt.

• We understand a new pavement section may be desired that will limit the change in existing grade. A new pavement section that includes the addition of only an asphalt surface will create the least amount of grade change.

• A new asphalt surface of 5 inches over the reconditioned asphalt millings will yield a structural number of 2.92.

Prior to placement of new asphalt materials, any potholes or rutted areas, or areas where vegetation is growing should be re-graded with at least 10 inches (6 inches, if a 5 inch asphalt mat is used) of asphalt milling or aggregate base course material prior to paving. Some areas may require additional ¾ inch road base or asphalt millings material for leveling and regrading.

Stabilization of soft areas, if present, should be performed prior to regrading. Typical stabilization recommendations are provided in Section 5.0 below. We can provide additional analysis and recommendations at the time of construction, if necessary.

4.3 General Pavement Recommendations

The asphalt pavement used on this project should be mixed in accordance with a design prepared by a licensed professional engineer, or an asphalt pavement specialist. We should be contacted to review the mix design prior to placement at the project site. We recommend that the asphalt pavement be compacted to between 92 and 96 percent of the maximum theoretical density.

In areas where no gravel section exists (i.e. shoulder work) the subgrade soil materials should be scarified to a depth of about 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as defined by ASTM D1557 or AASHTO T180 (Modified Proctor).

Proof rolling observations should then be performed over the prepared subgrade surface. Any areas of significant yielding should be stabilized as needed prior to placement of the overlying aggregate base course materials. The surface of the subgrade soil should be graded and contoured to be approximately parallel to the finished grade of the asphalt surface.

We suspect that the subgrade soils will be well above the optimum moisture content in many areas of the project. We anticipate that conventional scarification and drying of the subgrade soils will be sufficient for most areas of the parking lot subgrade provided warm and preferably breezy weather conditions are present during the project construction, and there is adequate time to perform scarification and drying construction procedures. However, it is likely that some areas of the subgrade will require specialty stabilization techniques. We have provided cursory recommendations for stabilization of severely yielding soil materials in Section 5.0 below.

The aggregate materials used within the pavement section should conform to the requirements outlined in the current Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The aggregate base material should be a ¾ inch minus material that conforms to the CDOT Class 6 aggregate base course specifications and have an R-value of at least 78. The aggregate sub-base course should conform to the CDOT specifications for Class 2 material and should have a minimum R-value 70. Other material may be suitable for use in the pavement section, but materials different than those listed above should be tested and observed by us prior to inclusion in the project design or construction. Aggregate sub-base and base-course materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as defined by the modified Proctor test, ASTM D1557.

Thorough proof rolling with a fully loaded tandem axle water truck should be performed across the prepared aggregate surface prior to placement of the asphalt cement. Any areas that are observed to yield should be stabilized as necessary. We should be contacted to observe the proof rolling operations and provide recommendations for stabilization if necessary.

The drainage characteristics of the parking lot should be addressed by the project civil engineer.

Surface water must not be allowed to pool in areas adjacent to the asphalt pavement parking lot.

5.0 SUBGRADE STABILIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS

We anticipate that stabilization of the subgrade materials may be required in some areas of the project. The actual stabilization design will need to be determined on a case by case basis as the design will be influenced on the degree of yielding at a particular area. We have provided a stabilization technique for subgrade soils that exhibit severe yielding below. This stabilization technique may be useful as a bid item for the project.

Mechanical stabilization of soil often includes placement of aggregate material and/or larger cobbles (3-4 inch size) into an area where the soils are yielding. The most predictable technique is to over-excavate these soft areas by about 8 to 12 inches, (or more, if needed) lightly proof compact the exposed soil, place a layer of woven geosynthetic or geogrid-type material, such as or Mirafi RS 280i or BXG 120 geogrid, followed by placement of a “clean crushed aggregate” material with a nominal maximum size of 3 inches and not more than about 5 percent passing the #4 sieve. This clean crushed aggregate material should then be consolidated with a plate-type compactor. A less robust fabric, such as a non-woven geofabric, (such as Mirafi 140N) is placed on top of this aggregate layer followed by placement and compaction of the overlying fill material.

For sites with extremely soft conditions it may be necessary to increase the clean aggregate layer to about 18 inches and place an intermediate layer of geogrid (or fabric) at mid-height of this layer.

Chemical stabilization using Portland cement can be effective for most soils. Generally, this technique is more suitable for isolated soft areas. Generally dry Portland cement powder may be placed on the surface of the soft yielding material and subsequently mixed into the soil. The effectiveness of this technique is partially dependent upon the thoroughness of the mixing. If it can be thoroughly mixed the application rate of the Portland cement need not be more than 10 percent, and often an application of 5 to 7 percent will provide a significant decrease in free water and stabilize the material. After mixing, the material should be allowed to “rest” for about two of more hours prior to compaction. The treated material will often yield some during initial compaction, but will generally increase in rigidity as the process of hydration begins takes place.

If yielding under compaction is excessive, the material should be allowed “cure” additionally prior to continued compaction effort being applied. Often it takes more time, such as overnight, to allow the cement to fully stabilize the material so this strategy is often implemented in an area at the end of a work day and allowed to cure overnight followed by subsequent fill placement on the following day.

6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

The section of the report provides comments, considerations and recommendations for aspects of the site construction which may influence, or be influenced by the geotechnical engineering considerations discussed above. The information presented below is not intended to discuss all aspects of the site construction conditions and considerations that may be encountered as the project progresses. If any questions arise as a result of our recommendations presented above, or if unexpected subsurface conditions are encountered during construction we should be contacted immediately.

6.1 Fill Placement Recommendations

There are several references throughout this report regarding both natural soil and compacted structural fill recommendations. The recommendations presented below are appropriate for the fill placement considerations discussed throughout the report above.

All areas adjacent to the existing parking lot that will receive fill or other site improvements should be properly prepared and grubbed at the initiation of the project construction. The grubbing operations should include scarification and removal of organic material and other unsuitable materials.

6.1.1 Aggregate Base Course Material

Granular compacted structural fill or aggregate base course is referenced in numerous locations throughout the text of this report. We recommend that aggregate base course materials conform to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) “Class 6” aggregate road base material, or “Class 2” aggregate sub-base course material. This specification can include an option for testing and approval in the event the contractor’s desired material does not conform to the Class 6 or Class 2 aggregate specifications. All aggregate base course materials should be moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as defined by ASTM D1557, modified Proctor test.

6.2 Grading and Drainage Comments

Some areas adjacent to the existing parking lot were observed to have relatively poor drainage characteristics and currently collect or pool water. The project civil engineering consultant should develop a drainage scheme for the project.

7.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND TESTING

Engineering observation of subgrade bearing conditions, compaction testing of fill material and testing of foundation concrete are equally important tasks that should be performed by the geotechnical engineering consultant during construction. We should be contacted during the construction phase of the project and/or if any questions or comments arise as a result of the information presented below. It is common for unforeseen, or otherwise variable subsurface soil and water conditions to be encountered during construction. As discussed in our proposal for our services, it is imperative that we be contacted to verify that the conditions encountered in our field exploration were representative of those encountered during construction. Our general recommendations for construction monitoring and testing are provided below.

• Consultation with design professionals during the design phases: This is important to ensure that the intentions of our recommendations are properly incorporated in the design, and that any changes in the design concept properly consider geotechnical aspects.

• Observation and monitoring during construction: A representative of the Geotechnical engineer from our firm should observe pavement subgrade to determine that subsurface conditions are compatible with those used in the analysis and design and our recommendations have been properly implemented. Placement of backfill should be observed and tested to judge whether the proper placement conditions have been achieved.

Compaction tests should be performed on each lift of material placed in areas proposed for support of structural components.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

While we feel that it is feasible to improve the existing parking lot as planned using relatively conventional techniques. We feel that it is prudent for us to be part of the continuing design of this project to review and provide consultation in regard to the proposed development scheme as the project progresses to aid in the proper interpretation and implementation of the recommendations presented in this report. This consultation should be incorporated in the project development prior to construction at the site.

9.0 LIMITATIONS

This study has been conducted based on the geotechnical engineering standards of care in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make no warranty as to the recommendations contained in this report, either expressed or implied. The information presented in this report is based on our understanding of the proposed construction that was provided to us and on the data obtained from our field and laboratory studies. Our recommendations are based on limited field and laboratory sampling and testing. Unexpected subsurface conditions encountered during construction may alter our recommendations. We should be contacted during construction to observe the exposed subsurface soil conditions to provide comments and verification of our recommendations.

The recommendations presented above are intended to be used only for this project site and the proposed construction which was provided to us. The recommendations presented above are not suitable for adjacent project sites, or for proposed construction that is different than that outlined for this study.

This report provides geotechnical engineering design parameters, but does not provide asphalt pavement design. The civil engineering consultant must be contacted to provide a design based on the information presented in this report.

The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of the property can occur with the passage of time. The changes may be due to natural processes or to the works of man, on the project site or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards can occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, the recommendations presented in this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years from the issue date without our review.

We are available to review and tailor our recommendations as the project progresses and additional information which may influence our recommendations becomes available.

Please contact us if you have any question or may be of additional service.

Respectfully, TRAUTNER GEOTECH

Tom R. Harrison, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

08-11-23

APPENDIX B

Laboratory Test Results

Tested By: J. Vaughn Checked By: C. DeLeon

7-19-23

B.1

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

GP-GM-Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand .75 .50

.375 #4

#10 #40 #200

NPL NLL Non-Plastic

13.8550 12.4886 8.3289

6.8451 3.7242 0.8964

0.2844 29.29 5.86

GP-GM A-1-a

Darren Stewart/SEH

Durango Airport Overflow Parking Lot Expansion

57960GE

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Test Boring 1 Depth: 0-10" Sample Number: 13107-A Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0 0 64 15 10 5 6 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

Particle Size Distribution Report

Tested By: J. Vaughn Checked By: C. DeLeon

7-19-23

B.2

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

GP-GM-Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand 1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4

#10 #40 #200

NPL NLL Non-Plastic

17.0476 14.0700 8.4634

6.8236 3.6210 0.9755

0.2710 31.23 5.72

GP-GM A-1-a

Darren Stewart/SEH

Durango Airport Overflow Parking Lot Expansion

57960GE

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Test Boring 5 Depth: 0-12" Sample Number: 13107-H Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0 7 56 16 10 4 7 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

Particle Size Distribution Report

Tested By: G. Jadrych Checked By: K. Moran

MOISTURE/DENISTY RELATIONSHIP

D ry d e n s it y p c f

Water content, %

5 7 9 11 13 15 17

10.2%, 123.6 pcf

Test specification: ASTM D 1557-12 Method A Modified

57960GE Darren Stewart/SEH

8/2/2023

B.3

Elev/ Classification Nat.

Sp.G. LL PI

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Date:

Location: Bulk Subgrade Sample Number: 13107-J

Figure

Maximum dry density = 123.6 pcf

Optimum moisture = 10.2 %

Durango Airport Overflow Parking Lot Expansion

California Bearing Ratio Test Results ASTM D-1883

Sample Date:

Start Soak: 8/4/2023

123.6 PCF End Soak: 8/8/2023

10.2 % Surcharge During Soak: 15 Lbs

Dry Density

(PCF)

Moisture

Content (%)

Relative

Compaction

Dry Density

(PCF)

Moisture Content of Top One (1)

Inch (%) Swell (%)

CBR (0.100"

penetration)

106.4 10.2 86.1% 97.9 24.5 5.4 1.9

110.4 10.6 89.4% 102.5 21.9 5.2 2.9

116.7 9.7 94.4% 105.8 21.2 5.4 3.5

2.8

California Bearing Ratio

@ 90% of Proctor Density:

Proctor Maximum Dry Density:

G.J.

Bulk Subgrade

Pre-Soak: Post-Soak:

Optimum Moisure Content:

13107-J

Proctor Method:

Sample I.D.:

Sample Description:

Sample Source: Combined from all borings

D 1557 method A

Technician:

Durango Airport Overflow Parking Lot Expansion

8/9/202357960 GE

Project Name:

Project Number:

86.1%

89.4%

94.4% y = 0.1481x - 13.681 R² = 0.9144

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

104.0 105.0 106.0 107.0 108.0 109.0 110.0 111.0 112.0 113.0 114.0 115.0 116.0 117.0 118.0 119.0

C a li fo rn ia B e a ri n g

R a ti o

C B

R

Dry Density (PCF)

APPENDIX C: DRAINAGE REPORT

DURANGO-LA PLATA COUNTY

AIRPORT PARKING LOT EXPANSION

DRAINAGE SUMMARY

AUGUST 25TH, 2023

Prepared By:

Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc

934 Main Ave. Unit C

Durango, CO 81303

Phone: (970) 385-4546

Introduction

The following drainage study was completed in order to determine the historic and developed flows for the Durango-La Plata County Airport Parking Lot Expansion project. The area of the proposed development is approximately 2.2 acres. The proposed parking lot includes 276 new parking spaces for access to the Durango-La Plata County Airport. The total project area is approximately 2.7 acres. As seen in Figure 1, the parking lot is located South of the Durango-La Plata County Airport main parking lot and will be accessed via Airport Road and adjacent parking lots.

Figure 1 – Project Location Map

The proposed conditions of the site are discussed throughout this report. The purpose of this report is to describe the existing and developed conditions of the project site to accommodate for the impacts of development on drainage of the study area.

Existing Conditions

Prior to development, the project area consisted of an unpaved, gravel parking lot made out of excess millings surrounded by sparse vegetation. The historic basins generally drain south to an existing catch basin. From there flows are transported offsite to the Northwest via a 18-inch storm drain.

Soil Conditions

According to the National Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, the hydraulic soil type for the site area is Type C. The soil type C is Falfa clay loam with 1 to 8 percent slopes. This soil type C has a moderate infiltration rate and consists of moderately deep and well drained soils. Type C soils have a slow infiltration rate when wet and consist of soils that impede the downward movement of water. See Appendix B for soil map and description.

Developed Conditions

The proposed development contains a paved parking lot extended over the existing lot. The basin will be split into four proposed subbasins which can be found in Appendix A. The runoff from Subbasin West A will be directed into a proposed catch basin (Catch Basin A) via a 3-ft cross pan on the West side of the site and a grass-lined swale on the southern side of the site. The runoff from Subbasin West B will be directed along the western edge of the proposed parking lot via curb and gutter, a 4-ft concrete cross pan, and a riprap channel which transports flow to Catch Basin A. The runoff from Subbasin East A will be directed along the Eastern edge of the proposed parking lot via curb and gutter and a rip rap channel which transports flow to the existing catch basin, Catch Basin B. The runoff from Subbasin East B will be directed along the eastern edge of the site via a grass-lined swale to Catch Basin B. Catch Basin A and Catch Basin B are connected to an existing 18-inch storm drain which will carry developed flows offsite to the Northwest. The swales and riprap channels will be sized to carry the 100-yr flow times 1.33 to the catch basins.

Historic and Developed Conditions

Method of Flow Calculation

The Rational Method was used to determine runoff. The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District’s Peak Runoff Prediction by the Rational Method -UD Rational 2.00 was used to calculate the time of concentration (Tc) and peak flows. Basins were delineated as shown in the drainage maps in Appendix A.

The percent impervious values for various surfaces are from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1, Table 6-3. The Manning’s Numbers used for various characteristics are found in the Hydraflow Users Guide for Manning’s n-Values. These Values can be found in Appendix D.

The Precipitation Frequency Data was found using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 for Durango, Colorado at the Durango- La Plata County Airport Parking Lot Expansion project site. This can be found in Appendix C.

Historic Flows For the historic drainage, the undeveloped basins generally flow south to an existing catch basin (Catch Basin B). Catch Basin B outfalls into an 18-inch CMP pipe which brings runoff off-site to the Northwest. The existing basin was split into two subbasins: one for the western side of the site and most of the parking lot (EX Basin West), and one for the northern and eastern edges (EX Basin East). Historic Flows were modeled using the basin delineation shown in overall Historic Drainage Map in Appendix A. EX Basin West drained to the south of the existing parking lot and under the South parking access ramp via two 6-inch pipes into Catch Basin B. EX Basin East flowed along the eastern side of the existing parking lot to the South where it was collected by Catch Basin B. The existing ground cover consisted of pavement, gravel (from excess millings), and grass. Based on Table 6-3 in the UDFCD Manual, Volume 1, the chosen percent impervious values were 100, 40, and 2 respectively. The 10-yr, and 100-yr historic flow rates were determined for the historic basins and can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2: Historic Flow Rates

Basin Contributing Basins Q 10-YEAR (cfs) Q 100-YEAR (cfs) EX Basin West -- 1.54 4.77 EX Basin East -- 0.56 2.13

Existing Combined EX1, EX2 2.10 6.90

The results and assumptions for the historic flow data from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District’s Peak Runoff Prediction by the Rational Method -UD Rational 2.00 can be found in Appendix D.

Developed Flows

The runoff from the site post development will continue to generally flow South. The site was split into four subbasins: paved parking row and vegetated buffer to the West of the proposed parking lot (Subbasin West A), one for the western half of the parking lot (Subbasin West B), one for the eastern half of the parking lot (Subbasin East A), and one for the vegetated area to the East of the parking lot Subbasin East B). An exhibit showing these basins can be found in Appendix A.

Runoff from Subbasin West A will travel via a cross pan and grass-lined swale to Catch Basin A. Runoff from Subbasin West B and Subbasin East A will be routed via gutters and concrete channels to riprap channels. The runoff from Subbasin West B will then outfall at Catch Basin A, while the runoff from Subbasin East A will outfall at Catch Basin B. Runoff from Subbasin East B will be routed around the parking lot via a grass-lined swale to Catch Basin B.

The (2) grass-lined swales and (2) riprap channels were designed to hold 1.33 times the 100-yr flow, per La Plata County standards. These calculations are shown in Appendix D.

The percent impervious values used for each surface were 40% for gravel, 2% for grass, and 100% for pavement. Developed Flows were modeled using the basin delineation shown in Appendix A. The flow results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Developed Runoff Summary

Basin Contributing Basins Q 10-YEAR (cfs) Q 100-YEAR (cfs) Subbasin West A -- 0.70 1.72 Subbasin West B -- 2.41 5.07 Subbasin East A -- 2.48 5.24 Subbasin East B -- 0.40 1.54

All Combined West A & B, East A & B 4.36 10.17

Predeveloped peak flows are discussed in the previous section. The historic and developed flows from the study area were calculated to verify the size of the grass-lined swales, riprap channels, and existing storm drain. Drainage feature capacities are summarized in Appendix D.

Drainage Design

All flows from the proposed site will be transported offsite to the North via an existing 18-inch Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) storm drain. This storm drain will be access via Catch Basin A and Catch Basin B. The existing storm drain was tested to accommodate the 10-yr event. Storm Drain capacity calculations were performed using Hydraflow Express software and the results are provided in the Appendix D.

Erosion Control Plan

Precautions should be taken to prevent any new erosion on-site and all adjacent areas. A Stormwater Management Plan shall be prepared and approved by the proper agencies prior to commencement of construction. All necessary erosion control measures will be constructed before commencement of construction. A Colorado Discharge Permit System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (SWMP Permit) is required for the project. Obtaining, documenting, and complying with the permit are the responsibility of the Contractor.

APPENDIX A: Drainage Maps

XX

X X

XXXXXXX

X

X

FO

FO

FO

FO

X

X

RIM 6676.34

INV

INV

INV

INV

INV

INV

RIM 6676.54

INV

INV

INV

INV

INV

INV

6666 66

69 66 71 66 72 66

WATERSHED LENGTH

WATERSHED LENGTH

EX BASIN WEST

ACRES: 1.83

EX BASIN EAST

ACRES: 1.02

CATCH BASIN B

(2) 6-IN CULVERTS

8/25/2023

Sa ve

: 8 /2

5/

2:

P M g fri zz el l P lo t:

8/

/2

:1

PM

X :\A

E\ D

\D

IB

EN

\1

8\ 5-fin al

-d sg n\

-fi na l-d sg n\

-H yd ro \1

8_ D ra in ag e

Ba si n.

dw g feetscale

30 6030

PROJECT NO.

DATE:

173398 EXISTING BASINS

DURANGO-LA PLATA COUNTY

AIRPORT PARKING LO TEXPANSION

LAND COVER LEGEND:

PAVEMENT

GRAVEL

GRASS

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XX

X X

XXXXXXX

X

X

FO

FO

FO

FO

X

X

RIM 6676.34

INV

INV

INV

INV

INV

INV

RIM 6676.54

INV

INV

INV

INV

INV

INV

667566

686668 66

6676 66

6677 66

WATERSHED LENGTH

WATERSHED LENGTH

SUBBASIN WEST B

ACRES: 0.85

SUBBASIN EAST A

ACRES: 0.89

SUBBASIN EAST B

ACRES: 0.74

SUBBASIN WEST A

ACRES: 0.37

CATCH BASIN B

CATCH BASIN A

(2) 6-IN CULVERTS

GRASS-LINED SWALE

(WEST SWALE)

EXISTING 18-IN

CMP CULVERT

4-FT CONCRETE

CROSS PAN

3-FT CONCRETE

PAN

GRASS-LINED SWALE

(EAST SWALE)

RIP RAP CHANNEL

(EAST CHANNEL)

RIP RAP CHANNEL

(WEST CHANNEL)

8/25/2023

Sa ve

: 8 /2

5/

2:

P M g fri zz el l P lo t:

8/

/2

:1

PM

X :\A

E\ D

\D

IB

EN

\1

8\ 5-fin al

-d sg n\

-fi na l-d sg n\

-H yd ro \1

8_ D ra in ag e

Ba si n.

dw g feetscale

30 6030

PROJECT NO.

DATE:

173398 PROPOSED BASINS

DURANGO-LA PLATA COUNTY

AIRPORT PARKING LO TEXPANSION

LAND COVER LEGEND:

PAVEMENT

GRAVEL

GRASS

APPENDIX B: Soil Map Information

/0%1(0"0%�# 2"3% 4+*05%�#(#+06#

���� ��8��9:9;

01-�

��234�45678972*�

0������

0��� 1����

'01-�* 0������

01-�

'0��

�����/##��$.-%0"$"����� �������"#"��$"#%&0/"�������������� �����1��������������2� �������������� ���2���

!"# ,(�- .&/01�#-��(/�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������** %" 2�"-" 3�4(-5 61&"7 3���1")����������������������������������������������������������������������*8 �9:;"�<" 0�"5 ��"=7 * -� 8 #&10&(- /��#&/�������������������������������������������������*8 �>:;"�<" 0�"5 ��"=7 8 -� � #&10&(- /��#&/�������������������������������������������������*?

>+:,/-�0 @�11��1-A&(-/B,/-����0 C"#�"1'�)/ 0�=#�&D7 *� -� 9+�������������������*�

E������

��"�����0��!���"�����$�����"�%����(!��!����$���!%�!��������������������!�($�%$��$��

1����!���*������������� ����%%����!)�����$��#��!��������"���2�����!��������%�� ������3456-�7&�456-������)��)�� $�%���������%��������!��������%���!�����$��� ������%��*������*�#����)�%���������%��*��!����!�������38�9-*�:;;<7&������������� �������� �%�����%�!������"� ������"��!����������456-&

1����!��*��!����������������!��$����!��%� �����)���!����!���!��$�������$����

!����������%����*���0����*���/���!���$� ���"�������))��)����*�,�!���!������!���"���%,� �� ������*��$��������%��!����������)!����$�������������0�!���%�%�������3�!���7&� '�0�!���%�%�����������%�!%� ��&�=�%$���0�!���%�%�����$����������"������ %�� �����!����%�����"�����������������%����&��������0�!���*��$����������"���0�!���%� %�����"�%����!�������!��$��8!�����������*����#��������!����!��$��,�!���!��%$���%����

A

)*+�+,-./012-34�'/5�)/,0*1-,���6-,3/,�0--,723*1/84�'9:!%���;7</�12084�=>)�?-3/�#�"�'9:!%

@//1

)/1/,8

)*+�:0*A/4�#4BC�B$�2D�+,231/7�-3�E�+-,1,*21�F!G&H�I�##HJ�8K//1G

+0

*!�2

�5

0�)

++0

��A ��0

B

�C

+�C

D B E !B��

0�)

+0 �F

E

*B

G �0

C

B +�2 !8

H

�5

�9

D

�I *1 0"

�D

J� ��D

B +�D

K L M N�

O *+�"8 0"�!?

!�B� �0� ��7

P

QR

S

TU

U U V

C Q�) 0� !�W *"�"B�

V

F

�1

"�W 0�

�"B� �B�

�B�

*"8

BB8

B0��

B�

!V�O

B�

!�B� �W

"B� V

+0��

�W ��"B�

B?

"8

!"V

�B� Q� X !8 +�D �B� "�9

�=*B�

C W 0�.

D Q�

0"!� Q� C W �B� ��#F

QY

Z

�C W 0�� �W

�C W �B�

J� B!*�

T�7 *B?

B!*�

�W

B�

V�� J� B!*�

T�"8 B?

+W �B�

*B�- J� B!*�

T�"?

�W �8

BB8

�B� +B8

B� V

O B!�*"�1

X D �B�

�W V

0�� Q� �9

!0�� T�9

0�� Q� G

�R U T�) T�R U R R

�8

W B� �"B�

P Q[ U

TU

U U �1 �V

"�7 Q� T�R U R P̀

P T�R U R P

O ��W

�7 *B?

"�7

B�

*1 *!*a� W W +0�:

�W

BE1

�0�:

0�

"V�� "8 +!T�"�

�8

*!�W

0�W

!V

*+�D �B� �D

P U

��/0 0)/12

�3 ��� �!"��#!�$�%&!)!($!1!*+,"+-(!

'0/) )�/02

34 5.(6"!7$,,6$,(8+-(.95.($��6"!

:�*��,;6<.!"$%*�+=&!'�!($!�4

>/' ?/32

@������������ �������� � �� ABCD BEECEF

���������G ����������

78+!%�*!H-6(.!<+�6-+�(+<!$-!(8+!<+(�6�+<!.$6�!%�*.!6-!�!.$6�!.H,I+#!,+*,+.+-(!(8+!

.$6�.!$,!%6."+���-+$H.!�,+�.!6-!(8+!.H,I+#!�,+�/!78+!%�*!H-6(!<+.",6*(6$-.&!��$-;!

J6(8!(8+!%�*.&!"�-!K+!H.+<!($!<+(+,%6-+!(8+!"$%*$.6(6$-!�-<!*,$*+,(6+.!$ !�!H-6(/

L!%�*!H-6(!<+�6-+�(6$-!$-!�!.$6�!%�*!,+*,+.+-(.!�-!�,+�!<$%6-�(+<!K#!$-+!$,!%$,+!

%�M$,!N6-<.!$ !.$6�!$,!%6."+���-+$H.!�,+�./!L!%�*!H-6(!6.!6<+-(6 6+<!�-<!-�%+<!

�""$,<6-;!($!(8+!(�=$-$%6"!"��..6 6"�(6$-!$ !(8+!<$%6-�-(!.$6�./!O6(86-!�!(�=$-$%6"!

"��..!(8+,+!�,+!*,+"6.+�#!<+ 6-+<!�6%6(.! $,!(8+!*,$*+,(6+.!$ !(8+!.$6�./!P-!(8+!

��-<."�*+&!8$J+I+,&!(8+!.$6�.!�,+!-�(H,��!*8+-$%+-�&!�-<!(8+#!8�I+!(8+!

"8�,�"(+,6.(6"!I�,6�K6�6(#!$ !���!-�(H,��!*8+-$%+-�/!78H.&!(8+!,�-;+!$ !.$%+!

$K.+,I+<!*,$*+,(6+.!%�#!+=(+-<!K+#$-<!(8+!�6%6(.!<+ 6-+<! $,!�!(�=$-$%6"!"��../!

L,+�.!$ !.$6�.!$ !�!.6-;�+!(�=$-$%6"!"��..!,�,+�#&!6 !+I+,&!"�-!K+!%�**+<!J6(8$H(!

6-"�H<6-;!�,+�.!$ !$(8+,!(�=$-$%6"!"��..+./!Q$-.+RH+-(�#&!+I+,#!%�*!H-6(!6.!%�<+!

H*!$ !(8+!.$6�.!$,!%6."+���-+$H.!�,+�.! $,!J86"8!6(!6.!-�%+<!�-<!.$%+!%6-$,!

"$%*$-+-(.!(8�(!K+�$-;!($!(�=$-$%6"!"��..+.!$(8+,!(8�-!(8$.+!$ !(8+!%�M$,!.$6�./

S$.(!%6-$,!.$6�.!8�I+!*,$*+,(6+.!.6%6��,!($!(8$.+!$ !(8+!<$%6-�-(!.$6�!$,!.$6�.!6-!(8+!

%�*!H-6(&!�-<!(8H.!(8+#!<$!-$(!� +"(!H.+!�-<!%�-�;+%+-(/!78+.+!�,+!"���+<!

-$-"$-(,�.(6-;&!$,!.6%6��,&!"$%*$-+-(./!78+#!%�#!$,!%�#!-$(!K+!%+-(6$-+<!6-!�!

*�,(6"H��,!%�*!H-6(!<+.",6*(6$-/!P(8+,!%6-$,!"$%*$-+-(.&!8$J+I+,&!8�I+!*,$*+,(6+.!

�-<!K+8�I6$,��!"8�,�"(+,6.(6".!<6I+,;+-(!+-$H;8!($!� +"(!H.+!$,!($!,+RH6,+!<6 +,+-(!

%�-�;+%+-(/!78+.+!�,+!"���+<!"$-(,�.(6-;&!$,!<6..6%6��,&!"$%*$-+-(./!78+#!

;+-+,���#!�,+!6-!.%���!�,+�.!�-<!"$H�<!-$(!K+!%�**+<!.+*�,�(+�#!K+"�H.+!$ !(8+!

."��+!H.+</!T$%+!.%���!�,+�.!$ !.(,$-;�#!"$-(,�.(6-;!.$6�.!$,!%6."+���-+$H.!�,+�.!

�,+!6<+-(6 6+<!K#!�!.*+"6��!.#%K$�!$-!(8+!%�*./!U !6-"�H<+<!6-!(8+!<�(�K�.+! $,!�!

;6I+-!�,+�&!(8+!"$-(,�.(6-;!%6-$,!"$%*$-+-(.!�,+!6<+-(6 6+<!6-!(8+!%�*!H-6(!

<+.",6*(6$-.!��$-;!J6(8!.$%+!"8�,�"(+,6.(6".!$ !+�"8/!L! +J!�,+�.!$ !%6-$,!

"$%*$-+-(.!%�#!-$(!8�I+!K++-!$K.+,I+<&!�-<!"$-.+RH+-(�#!(8+#!�,+!-$(!

%+-(6$-+<!6-!(8+!<+.",6*(6$-.&!+.*+"6���#!J8+,+!(8+!*�((+,-!J�.!.$!"$%*�+=!(8�(!6(!

J�.!6%*,�"(6"��!($!%�N+!+-$H;8!$K.+,I�(6$-.!($!6<+-(6 #!���!(8+!.$6�.!�-<!

%6."+���-+$H.!�,+�.!$-!(8+!��-<."�*+/

78+!*,+.+-"+!$ !%6-$,!"$%*$-+-(.!6-!�!%�*!H-6(!6-!-$!J�#!<6%6-6.8+.!(8+!

H.+ H�-+..!$,!�""H,�"#!$ !(8+!<�(�/!78+!$KM+"(6I+!$ !%�**6-;!6.!-$(!($!<+�6-+�(+!

*H,+!(�=$-$%6"!"��..+.!KH(!,�(8+,!($!.+*�,�(+!(8+!��-<."�*+!6-($!��-< $,%.!$,!

QH.($%!T$6�!V+.$H,"+!V+*$,(