Atch_8_-_AECOM_Engineering_Assessment_Report.pdf

AECOM 916.414.5800 tel 2020 L Street, Suite 400 916.414.5850 fax Sacramento, CA 95811 www.aecom.com

9 June 2014

Mr. John Crandell 9th Civil Engineer Squadron, 9 CES/CENP 6451 B Street Beale AFB, CA 95903

RE: Engineering Assessment Report Three Bridges Replacement, Beale AFB, California, Contract No. W912BV-10-2006, Task Order No. 0012

Dear Mr. Crandell, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. is pleased to present four hard copies of the above-referenced report, with each hard copy containing one electronic copy (on compact disc). The report includes the engineering assessment and 35% concept design package, which provide the basis for a design-build procurement for the replacement of four bridges. The report includes a geotechnical study, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, 35% concept design drawings, and engineering cost estimates in support of the replacement recommendations.

Should you have questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 916.361.6425.

Sincerely, AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

Andy Shepard Senior Project Manager cc: Michelle Lay, USACE (1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy)

Enclosures: Engineering Assessment Report Three Bridges Replacement, Beale AFB, California

Engineering Assessment Report Three Bridges Replacement Beale AFB, California

Prepared for:

9 CES/CEN

6451 B Street, Building 2535 Beale Air Force Base, California 95903 and

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tulsa District 1645 S. 101st East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128

Prepared by:

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

June 2014

Three Bridges Replacement, Beale AFB, California i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ i TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ ii APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... ii ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 DESIGN BASIS

2.1 TOPOGRAPHIC FIELD SURVEY

2.2 GEOTECHNICAL STUDY

2.3 ROADWAY

2.4 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

2.5 BRIDGE TYPE SELECTION

2.5.1 Construction Staging

2.5.2 Bridge Aesthetics

2.5.3 Site Geology and Seismicity

2.5.4 Construction & Maintenance Costs

2.5.5 Evaluations and Recommendations

2.5.5.1 Span Layouts

2.5.5.2 Superstructure

2.5.5.3 Piers/ Intermediate Supports

2.5.5.4 Abutments

2.6 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS

2.6.1 Applicable Codes and Standards

2.6.2 Design Criteria

2.6.3 Pump Station

2.6.4 Force Main

2.6.5 Gravity Sewer and Manholes

2.6.6 Utilities

2.7 ELECTRICAL, INSTRUMENTATION, AND CONTROL DESIGN BASIS

2.7.1 Electrical Bridge Crossing

2.7.2 Communication Lines

2.8 SITE 17 SERVICE

2.8.1 Water Lines

2.8.2 Electric Lines

2.8.3 Site 17 Access

3.0 35% CONCEPT DESIGN TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS

3.1 TECHNICAL NARRATIVE

3.2 DESIGN DRAWINGS

3.3 SPECIFICATIONS

3.4 PARAMETRIC COSTS

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

4.0 REFERENCES

TABLES

Table

2-1 Hydraulic Analysis Summary 2-2 Existing Conditions Hydraulic Summary at Gavin Mandery Drive 2-3 Proposed Conditions Hydraulic Summary at Gavin Mandery Drive 2-4 Caltrans Comparative Bridges Costs – January 2013 2-5 Sanitary Improvements Design Criteria 2-6 Sanitary Improvements Design Criteria – Alternative 3-1 Cost Estimate Summary 3-2 Cost Estimate Comparison Sanitary Sewer Alternative Design

APPENDICES

Appendix

Appendix A 35% Concept Design Drawings Appendix B Topographic Maps Appendix C Geotechnical Study Appendix D Hydrologic and Hydraulic Data Appendix E Site 17 As-Built Drawings Appendix F Parametric Cost Engineering System Project Detail Report iii

ACRONYMS

% percent AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFB Air Force Base Caltrans California Department of Transportation CIP cast-in-place CN curve number d/D depth to diameter ratio DBC Design/Build Contractor EIC Electrical, Instrumentation, and Control HOA Hand-Off-Auto kV kilovolt MCC motor control center MFH Military Family Housing NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service No. number PACESTM Parametric Cost Engineering System PLC programmable logic controller PC/PS precast/prestressed qP peak flow RC reinforced concrete RSP rock slope protection SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition TC time of concentration UFC Unified Facilities Criteria V volt WSEL water surface elevation

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Gavin Mandery Drive utilizes four cast-in-place (CIP) reinforced concrete (RC) T-beam or CIP RC slab bridges to cross Best Slough and Dry Creek downstream of the confluence of the two waterways, just west of the Military Family Housing (MFH) area at Beale Air Force Base (AFB), California. This series of four bridges is collectively known as Three Bridges. This report summarizes the engineering assessment for replacing these four bridges under Contract Number (No.) W912BV-10-D-2006, Task Order No. 0012. Beale AFB is located in Yuba County as depicted on Drawing G-01 of Appendix A.

A severe storm event that occurred during December 2012 generated flood flows that exceeded the conveyance capacity of the Dry Creek and Best Slough channels, and overtopped the four bridges located over Dry Creek and Best Slough along Gavin Mandery Drive, which provide access to the MFH area. Additionally, the current bridge segments pose a safety hazard to vehicle and pedestrian traffic due to the narrow width of the roadway (i.e., single car capacity) and lack of protective guard rails. Future heavy rain events could generate flood flows that again exceed the conveyance capacity of the channels at the bridge locations resulting in overtopping of the existing structures and potential damage to pipeline utilities (sanitary sewer and communications lines) affixed to the side of the bridge, which could cause environmental impacts associated with discharges from damaged pipelines.

The information presented in this report serves as the “Basis of Design” for civil works.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The objectives of the work described in this report are as follows:

Perform field surveys to supplement/update existing topographic base mapping to reflect current site conditions;

Perform a hydrologic/hydraulic evaluation of the existing bridges in order to support the design/documentation for the selection of the replacement bridges;

Perform a geotechnical investigation to evaluate the soil structure required for preliminary and final design of the roadway embankments, structural section, and bridge foundations within the replacement area; and

Design elements for the final structure type selection will include details for the following:

Replacement of four bridges (approximately 500 lineal feet of bridge structure), including improvements to Gavin Mandery Drive through the four bridges area (approximately 1,000 lineal feet of paved roadway improvements) to current standards for two way traffic;

2.0 DESIGN BASIS

2.1 TOPOGRAPHIC FIELD SURVEY

Field surveys were performed to augment the existing Light Detection and Ranging topographic data and bridge survey information (L&L Surveying, 2000). Updated topographic data were collected to describe the waterway both upstream and downstream of the existing bridge structures, the waterway openings at the bridges, and to confirm the roadway geometrics for the alignment within the project limits. The survey data was utilized for hydraulic modelling of the flow channel.

Topographic maps are presented in Appendix B.

2.2 GEOTECHNICAL STUDY

Six soil borings were completed on November 7 and 8, 2013 by Cascade Drilling, L.P. under subcontract to AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM). These borings are located just off of the shoulder of the approach embankments of the existing bridges, and the locations are shown in Appendix C.

The borings were extended to depths of 15 to 41 feet below surface grades using hollow-stem auger and split-spoon sampling techniques, and were logged in the field by an AECOM geologist. Three of the six borings were blank-drilled (without sampling) through the embankment fill, and those borings have a P designation. The other three borings were sampled along the full depth, and each has a B designation. The information collected from borings B-101 and P-102 are shared between adjacent bridges.

A further discussion of the geotechnical work, including a figure depicting the locations of the borings, the boring logs, the results of the laboratory testing, and waste disposal documentation are included in Appendix C.

2.3 ROADWAY

The road shall meet the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual standards. Existing traffic lights and poles shall be removed and salvaged. The road barriers and bridge approach shall be designed by the Design/Build Contractor (DBC) per the Caltrans standards. All existing signage shall be removed, and the new signs shall be provided in accordance with the Caltrans standard specifications.

2.4 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

The three bridges system along Gavin Mandery Drive is a part of the natural channel which collects run-off from approximately 32,026 acres. The channel leading up to the bridges runs from the northeast to the west. The natural trapezoidal channel varies in width and depth, with a roughness coefficient of 0.15 for “short prairie grass.”

The three bridges span about 1,184 feet over four different sections where flow comes through.

The decks over each open area range between 7 and 10.5 feet above the bottom of the channel, conveying the flows proportionally through the openings.

2.5 BRIDGE TYPE SELECTION

Replacement structure recommendations were made based on the topographic field study (Section 2.1), geotechnical study (Section 2.2), and hydrologic and hydraulic analysis (Section 2.3) activities. The recommendations are discussed in further detail in the following subsections.

The purpose of the structure type selection process is to choose an economic structure type that minimizes impacts to the existing and future built environment, provide appropriate clearance and sight distance for Gavin Mandery Drive traffic, render a profile which meets the safety and operational requirements, and be constructible within the site constraints as currently defined. The following paragraphs describe the main issues considered in the type selection process.

2.5.1 Construction Staging

It is anticipated that Gavin Mandery Drive will be closed to traffic during construction within the project limits. By detouring traffic, the construction duration will be minimized, and the cost of staging the construction while maintaining traffic will be eliminated.

2.5.2 Bridge Aesthetics

Consideration was given to aesthetic merits of the various structure types and span configurations. Although important, aesthetic considerations have to be carefully weighed against the additional cost they incur. In most cases, it is possible for the bridge designer to incorporate simple, yet effective, measures to enhance the appearance of the bridge if aesthetics are considered early in the design process.

The proposed structure types are typical for the project setting. Only a very small portion of the structure at each location is visible due to the low profiles, and the lack of adjacent facilities which present the opportunity for viewing them from other than the roadway.

One opportunity to enhance the aesthetics would be the use of a “see through” traffic barrier rather than the solid Type 27 barrier depicted in Drawings S-02 through S-05 of Appendix A;

however, that type of barrier is considerably more expensive, and was therefore not selected.

2.5.3 Site Geology and Seismicity

As discussed in Section 2.2, six soil borings were completed, and select soil samples were sent to a laboratory for the completion of various index tests, which were used along with the field drilling notes to compile the formal boring logs that are in Appendix C.

Based on the soil boring results, the replacement bridges may be supported on either spread footing foundations, or relatively short drilled piers. Typical driven piling is not recommended due to the relatively shallow depth to very dense strata, where hard driving and refusal are likely before a tip elevation that would support the necessary lateral response to seismic demands could be attained. Liquefaction effects at this site are considered unlikely, based on the preliminary review.

2.5.4 Construction & Maintenance Costs

Obviously, cost is an important factor in the choice of structure type. The tabular data below provides some general information that relates structure type, span length and relative cost.

Table 2-4 is an excerpt from a Caltrans document, Comparative Bridge Costs, dated January 2013. This table, along with other information, was used to select the alternatives that were evaluated.

TABLE 2-4. CALTRANS COMPARATIVE BRIDGE COSTS – JANUARY 2013

Consideration was given to the full spectrum of structure types, and local construction contractor and material supplier abilities were factored in.

CIP concrete is the predominant material currently being used for bridge construction in California. In particular, CIP concrete box girders have the biggest market share among concrete construction systems. Both reinforced and prestressed CIP configurations require extensive falsework within the limits of the ordinary high water during construction, with potential for adverse impacts to environmental resources.

Precast/prestressed (PC/PS) concrete girder systems offer some benefits that can make them competitive with cast-in-place construction, although they are not as commonly used and many contractors do not have as much experience in installing them. PC girder construction often minimizes or eliminates the need for falsework within the waterway, and can reduce environmental impacts during construction. PC members are often fabricated using high-performance concrete, which is characterized by strength and durability levels exceeding those of normal CIP concrete, which may result in fewer girders, longer spans, and/or shallower superstructures, as well as improved longevity and lower maintenance costs.

The use of structural steel for bridge construction in California is not as common as either CIP or PC concrete structure types, and therefore comes at a premium price due to the lack of local fabrication capacity, knowledge, and contractor interest. Depending on the susceptibility to corrosion, the long-term maintenance costs can be higher for structural steel bridges.

For economic purposes, it is best to select structural systems that are commonly used locally;

otherwise, the overall constructability of the structure may be beyond the range of experience of a larger number of contractors, thereby reducing the number likely to compete for the work, which in turn will lead to less competitive bids for the construction of the project.

In the long term, expansion joints typically present costly maintenance problems. The use of integral abutments and continuous superstructure can eliminate the need for the majority of expansion joints. In an effort to reduce both initial and long-term costs, expansion joints are located to minimize their size and number. Expansion joints are best located to separate dissimilar superstructure types (especially at the ends of post-tensioned segments) and to keep the movement rating at each joint to less than four inches. At abutments, joint seals may be eliminated if the bridge design can keep the movement rating there to less than half an inch, in which case an integral end diaphragm abutment type may be used.

Bearings can also present maintenance problems, although not with short span structures such as those under consideration here. The use of integral abutments and bents eliminates the need for bearings. Integral abutments and bents will be designed where they improve overall structural behavior under seismic loading, and work well with the construction sequence and selected structure type.

2.5.5 Evaluations and Recommendations

The primary constraints driving the type selection process were hydraulic conveyance capacity, roadway safety, and economics; minimizing the impacts to the sensitive environmental resources within the project limits while improving the horizontal/vertical alignment of the roadway; providing for safe two-way traffic; and creating sufficient hydraulic conveyance capacity at the four waterway crossings to pass the design flood.

2.5.5.1 Span Layouts

Drawings S-02 through S-05 of Appendix A show the recommended span layouts for the proposed structures. The structures at the west (Bridge No. 3111) and east (Bridge No. 3114) ends of the project will be single spans, while the two interior structures (Bridge Nos. 3112 and 3113) will consist of five spans, with each overall span arrangement, skew angle, and length chosen to work with the specific crossing.

2.5.5.2 Superstructure

A review of the available data indicate that either single- or multi-span reinforced or PS concrete slab or box girder-type bridges are the most appropriate superstructures for this project. Slab spans from 25 to 44 feet are appropriate for use with the Caltrans RC slab bridge standard designs (Bridges No. 3112 and 3113). Bridge No. 3111 is anticipated to be a single span CIP or PC/PS concrete slab, while a typical reinforced or PS concrete box girder section is considered the logical choice for the single span crossing of Dry Creek (Bridge No. 3114).

2.5.5.3 Piers/ Intermediate Supports

Bridge Nos. 3112 and 3113 are five span structures, each with three interior supports. These can be either wall type or individual columns. Drawings S-03 and S-04 of Appendix A show pier wall-type interior supports. These pier walls are depicted as two feet thick, and are oriented so that the face of the support is approximately parallel to the direction of the flow to minimize obstruction to that flow, and the potential for debris accumulation.

Should the final design utilize the spread footing configuration shown, the footing excavation is anticipated to be backfilled with a rock backing material which would have a gradation of four to six inches to protect the margin of the footing from erosion. Velocities of the flow through the structure are anticipated to be low, and pier scour is not anticipated to be an issue; however, if spread footing is utilized, the top of the footing should be set a minimum of one foot below the elevation of the calculated scour for the final structure configuration.

2.5.5.4 Abutments

Medium-height integral end-diaphragm type abutments are recommended. The abutments will have return walls at right angles to the abutment face, extending only far enough to retain the approach fills. It is anticipated that both slab and box girder construction would terminate in a fixed connection to the abutment without a joint when possible. Abutment locations are shown with a rock slope protection (RSP) material covering the waterway slope. The RSP is only anticipated to minimize the potential for long-term erosion of those slopes, and is not intended as mitigation for contraction scour.

2.7.1 Electrical Bridge Crossing

Four electrical conduits shall be provided on each bridge span, and each conduit shall terminate within an electric manhole on each side of the bridge. Each conduit shall be constructed of four-inch steel supported at a minimum elevation of one foot above the 100-year flood elevation. No conduit shall extend below the bridge structure. The DBC is not providing electrical lines through these conduits.

2.7.2 Communication Lines

Six-inch steel support pipe shall be provided on the north side of each bridge span. Two, two-inch roll pipes shall be provided from each buried roll pipe connection through the bridge support, and to the subsequent buried roll pipe on the opposite side of the bridge. Where the connection to the existing buried roll pipe is not feasible, a new buried roll pipe shall be provided. The ending communication lines should be two, two-inch continuous roll pipes.

2.8 SITE 17 SERVICE

This section provides additional detail regarding the water lines, electrical lines, and roadway access to Site 17. Site 17 is located between the Dry Creek Overflow and the Slough Bridges.

As-built drawings for Site 17 are provided in Appendix E.

2.8.1 Water Lines

An existing three-inch water line that crosses the Dry Creek and the Dry Creek Overflow bridges and continues to Site 17 shall be replaced in kind. The water line shall be supported from the bridges at a minimum elevation of one foot above the 100-year flood elevation. Water service to Site 17 must be maintained during construction.

2.8.2 Electric Lines

An existing two-inch electrical conduit crosses the Dry Creek and the Dry Creek Overflow bridges, and continues to Site 17. This conduit shall be replaced in kind, and new wiring shall replace the existing in kind. The electrical conduit shall be supported from the bridges at a minimum elevation of one foot above the 100-year flood elevation. Electrical service to Site 17 must be maintained during construction.

2.8.3 Site 17 Access

Gavin Mandery Drive shall be closed to the public at the project site during construction of the bridges and roadway. However, the DBC will coordinate access to Site 17 during construction activities, because Site 17 is located between Dry Creek and Best Slough in an area south of the four bridge structures. It shall be necessary to stage construction such that continuous vehicle access shall be provided to the 9 CES/CEIE contractor responsible for operating and maintaining Site 17. Continuous access for a light-duty maintenance vehicle shall be provided throughout the duration of the project, and the DBC shall be prepared to schedule non-routine access for a heavy-duty maintenance vehicle within 72 hours of notification.

3.0 35% CONCEPT DESIGN TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS

The 35% Concept Design package includes this technical narrative, design drawings, an anticipated specifications list, and a parametric cost estimate. The following subsections provide a description of the 35% Concept Design package contents.

3.1 TECHNICAL NARRATIVE

This engineering assessment report provides a technical narrative to highlight the requirements for the Base to provide a Design/Build Contractor, who will complete the design and construction of the stormwater drainage repairs. The technical narrative defines the basis of design and project technical requirements.

3.2 DESIGN DRAWINGS

The 35% Concept Design includes the following design drawings, which are bound as a separate document:

G-01 TITLE, SITE LOCATION

G-02 ABBREVIATIONS

G-03 ELECTRICAL ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND

C-01 SANITARY SEWER CIVIL LAYOUT - SITE PLAN

C-02 LAYOUT – COMMUNICATION AND ELECTRICAL EXTENSIONS

E-01 ELECTRICAL ONE-LINE

E-02 ELECTRICAL DETAILS

S-01 KEY PLAN

S-02 BRIDGE OVER BEST SLOUGH OVERFLOW (BR NO. 3111)

S-03 BRIDGE OVER BEST SLOUGH (BR NO. 3112)

S-04 BRIDGE OVER DRY CREEK OVERFLOW (BR NO. 3113)

S-05 BRIDGE OVER DRY CREEK (BR NO. 3114)

3.3 SPECIFICATIONS

Specifications shall be completed by the DBC following SpecsIntact standards. The following specifications are anticipated as a part of the final design documents.

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 01 15 LIST OF DRAWINGS

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS

01 20 00.00 20 PRICE AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES

01 20 01.00 10 COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT

01 22 00.00 10 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT

01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE

01 32 16.00 20 CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS DOCUMENTATION

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 29.00 20 SUSTAINABLE REQUIREMENTS

01 35 40.00 20 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

01 45 00.10 20 QUALITY CONTROL FOR MINOR CONSTRUCTION

01 45 35 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 57 19.00 20 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

01 57 20.00 10 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

01 57 23 TEMPORARY STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

01 58 00 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

01 62 35 RECYCLED/RECOVERED/BIOBASED MATERIALS

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT

01 75 00 STARTING AND ADJUSTING

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

01 91 00.00 40 COMMISSIONING

DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 32 00 SUBSURFACE DRILLING, SAMPLING, AND TESTING

02 82 16.00 20 ENGINEERING CONTROL OF ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

03 11 13.00 10 STRUCTURAL CAST-IN PLACE CONCRETE FORMING

03 20 00.00 10 CONCRETE REINFORCING

03 23 00 STEEL STRESSING TENDONS AND ACCESSORIES FOR

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

03 30 53 MISCELLANEOUS CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

03 35 00.00 10 CONCRETE FINISHING

03 40 00.00 10 PLANT-PRECAST CONCRETE PRODUCTS FOR BELOW GRADE

CONSTRUCTION

DIVISION 05 - METALS

05 50 13 MISCELLANEOUS METAL FABRICATIONS

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

09 90 00 PAINTS AND COATINGS

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 00 00 PLUMBING, GENERAL PURPOSE

22 11 23.00 10 SUBMERSIBLE PUMP, AXIAL-FLOW AND MIXED-FLOW TYPE

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 00 00.00 20 BASIC ELECTRICAL MATERIALS AND METHODS

26 05 00.00 40 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR ELECTRICAL

26 05 19.00 10 INSULATED WIRE AND CABLE

26 05 48.00 10 SEISMIC PROTECTION FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

26 12 19.10 THREE-PHASE PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMERS

26 28 00.00 10 MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS, SWITCHBOARDS AND

PANELBOARDS

26 28 21.00 40 AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCHES

26 29 01.00 10 ELECTRIC MOTORS, 3-PHASE VERTICAL INDUCTION TYPE

26 32 14.00 10 DIESEL-GENERATOR SET, STATIONARY 15-300 KW, STANDBY

APPLICATIONS

26 33 53.00 20 UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY (UPS)

26 35 46.00 20 RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE POWER LINE FILTERS

26 41 00 LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM

DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATIONS

27 21 10.00 40 FIBER OPTIC DATA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 00 00 EARTHWORK

31 10 00 CLEARING FOR CIVIL WORKS

31 11 00 CLEARING AND GRUBBING

31 23 00.00 20 EXCAVATION AND FILL

31 62 13.13 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PILES

31 63 29 DRILLED CONCRETE PIERS AND SHAFTS

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 05 33 LANDSCAPE ESTABLISHMENT

32 11 23 AGGREGATE AND/OR GRADED-CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE

COURSE

32 11 24 GRADED CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE FOR PERVIOUS

PAVEMENT

32 12 16 HOT-MIX ASPHALT (HMA) FOR ROADS

32 15 00 AGGREGATE SURFACE COURSE

32 16 13 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS AND CURBS AND GUTTERS

32 31 13 CHAIN LINK FENCES AND GATES

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

33 30 00 SANITARY SEWERS

33 40 00 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES

33 71 02 UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION

33 73 00.00 40 UTILITY TRANSFORMERS

DIVISION 34 - TRANSPORTATION

34 71 13.19 ACTIVE VEHICLE BARRIERS

DIVISION 35 – MARINE AND WATERWAY CONSTRUCTION

35 31 19 CHANNEL PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURES

4.0 REFERENCES

Air Combat Command United States Air Force, 2009. Design Compatibility Guide, Beale Air Force Base, California. August.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2014. The following is a partial list of the bridge and highway design & construction references that are available from Caltrans, and are applicable to the proposed works:

Highway Design Manual - Sixth Edition (US), constitutes primary design specifications for highway design and facilities. Available on the California Department of Transportation website at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2012 (Sixth Edition) with California Amendments (AASHTO-CA BDS), constitutes primary design specifications for bridges and ancillary structures. Available on the California Department of Transportation website at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/techpubs/manual/bridgemanuals/ca-to-aashto-lrfd-bds/caalbds_v6.html

Caltrans Bridge Design Aids http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/techpubs/manual/bridgemanuals/bridge-design-aids/bda.html Caltrans Bridge Memos to Designers http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/techpubs/ Caltrans Standard Plans 2010 English http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_plans/HTM/10_plans_disclaim_US.htm

Construction Manual 2013. Available on the California Department of Transportation website at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/constmanual/construction_manual.pdf.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2013. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Civil Engineering. UFC 3-201-01. Available on the Whole Building Design Guide website at http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_201_01.pdf. June.

United States Department of Agriculture, 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (TR- 55). United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Engineering Division. Available on the Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture website at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044171.pdf. June.

APPENDIX A

35% CONCEPT DESIGN DRAWINGS

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95811 www.aecom.com

Department of the Army Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers 1645 South 101st East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma

9th Civil Engineering Squadron and Air Combat Command

Beale Air Force Base

A N

S I

D x

F ile n a m e

P

\9

-W O

R K

IN

G

D O

C S

-C A

D \G

L O

B A

L C

A D

D S

T A

N D

A R

D S

\0

A -B

R

ID

G E

W O

R K

\6

-G -C

O V

E R

.D W

G

L a st s a ve d b y:

A R

M

IT

A G

E D st P lo tt e d

-0

-0

Three Bridges Upgrade Conceptual Design

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

Contract No. W912BV-10-D-2006 TASK 0012

BEALE AFB, CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2014

DWG NO. DESCRIPTION

INDEX

SHT NO.DWG NO. DESCRIPTION

INDEX

G-01 G-02 G-03

C-01 C-02 C-03

M-01

E-01 E-02

S-01 S-02 S-03 S-04 S-05

TITLE, SITE LOCATION

ABBREVIATIONS

ELECTRICAL ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND

SANITARY SEWER CIVIL LAYOUT

LAYOUT-COMMUNICATION AND ELECTRICAL EXTENSIONS

SANITARY SEWER ALTERNATIVE DESIGN

WETWELL AND VALVE VAULT DETAILS

ELECTRICAL ONE-LINE

ELECTRICAL DETAILS

KEY PLAN

BRIDGE OVER BEST SLOUGH OVERFLOW

BRIDGE OVER BEST SLOUGH

BRIDGE OVER DRY CREEK OVERFLOW

BRIDGE OVER DRY CREEK

SHT NO.

BEALE

AIR FORCE BASE

TO LINDA

OLIVEHURST SR 65

SR 20

SITE LOCATION

SACRAMENTO

HAMMONTON SMARTSVILLLE RD

P ro je ct

M a n a g e m e n t

In iti a ls

D e si g n e r:

C h e ck e d

A p p ro ve d

A M

G X

X X

X

AECOM Project No. 60307690

SPENCEVILLE ROAD/

CAMP BEALE HWY.

GAVIN MANDRY DR.

WARREN SHINGLE ROAD

DRY CREEK

SO

U

TH

B

EA

LE

R O

AD

NORTH BEALE ROAD

YUBA RIVER

WARREN SHINGLE ROAD

GAVIN MANDRY DR.

PROJECT LOCATION

1539948659E Line

1539948659E Line

1539948659E Line

1539948659E Line

1539948659E Text Box

FOR REFERENCE ONLY

Printed on ���� Post-Consumer Recycled Content Paper

KEY PLAN

CONSULTANT

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95811 www.aecom.com

CLIENT

Department of the Army Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers 1645 South 101st East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma

9th Civil Engineering Squadron and Air Combat Command Beale Air Force Base

PROJECT

Three Bridges Upgrade Conceptual Design

BEALE, AFB, CALIFORNIA

Contract No. W912BV-10-D-2006 TASK 0012 AECOM Project No. 60307690

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

A N

S I

D x

L a st s a ve d b y:

B

R O

W N

M

�2 -0

-0 st P lo tt e d

-0

-0

F ile n a m e

P

E N

V \B

E A

L E

A F

B \6

C O

N C

E P

T D

E S

IG

N

S A

N D

S U

P P

O R

T S

E R

V

IC

E S

\9

-C

A D

-G

IS

\9

G

IS

-G

R A

P H

IC

S

\B R

ID

G

E S

\3

D

E S

IG

N

S H

E E

T S

\G -0

A B

B R

E V

IA

T

IO

N

S .D

W G

P ro je ct

M a n a g e m e n t

In iti a ls

D e si g n e r:

C h e ck e d

A p p ro ve d of 14

GENERAL SYMBOLS

MINOR CONTOURS

MAJOR CONTOURS

UTILITY SYMBOLS

EXISTING

LIMIT OF ACCESS

WATERWAY

SANITARY SEWER MAIN

MANHOLE

COMMUNICATION

ELECTRICAL

CONSTRUCTION

ACCESS ROAD

COMMUNICATION

PULL BOX

SANITARY SEWER

PUMP STATION

- ACRYLONITRILE-BUTADIENE-STYRENE

- AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.

- AIR FORCE BASE

- ASBESTOS CEMENT

- BELOW GROUND SURFACE

- CAST IRON

- CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

- DEPTH TO DIAMETER RATION

- DRAWING

- DRIVE

- DUCTILE IRON

- EAST

- ELEVATION

- ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

- FEET

- FEET PER SECOND

- GALLONS PER MINUTE

- GALVANI�ED PIPE

- HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE PIPE

- INLET

- INVERT

- INVERT ELEVATION

- MANHOLE

- MANUFACTURE

- MINIMUM

- NOT TO SCALE

- OUTSIDE DIAMETER

- PERCENT

- POLYVINYL CHLORIDE

- RE�UIRED

- STATE ROAD

- SANITARY SEWER

- TO BE DETERMINED

- TYPICAL

- WATER LEVEL

- WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

- YEAR

ABBREVIATIONS

ABS

AECOM

AFB

AC

BGS

CI

CFR

d/D

DWG.

DR

DI

E

EL

EAR

FT.

FPS

GPM

GP

HDPE

INLET

INV

IE

MH

MFR

MIN

NTS

OD

PVC

RE��D

SR

SS

TBD

TYP

WL

WWTP

YR

EXISTING PROPOSED

EXISTING PROPOSED

ABANDONED

SHEET TITLE

THREE BRIDGES

ABBREVIATIONS �

LEGEND

I/R DATE DESCRIPTION

ISSUE/REVISION

SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER

1539948659E

ABBREVIATIONS

ONE-LINE SYMBOLS

SCHEMATIC SYMBOLS

Printed on ___% Post-Consumer Recycled Content Paper

KEY PLAN

CONSULTANT

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95811 www.aecom.com

CLIENT

Department of the Army Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers 1645 South 101st East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma

9th Civil Engineering Squadron and Air Combat Command Beale Air Force Base

PROJECT

Three Bridges Upgrade Conceptual Design

BEALE, AFB, CALIFORNIA

Contract No. W912BV-10-D-2006 TASK 0012 AECOM Project No. 60307690

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

A N

S I

D x

L a st s a ve d b y:

A

R M

IT

A

G E

D (2

-0

-0 st P lo tt e d

-0

-0

F ile n a m e

P

\9

-W

O R

K

IN

G D

O C

S -C

A D

\G L

O B

A L

C A

D D

S T

A N

D A

R D

S \0

A

-B R

ID

G

E W

O R

K \6

A -G

-0

.D W

G P ro je ct M a n a g e m e n t

In iti a ls

D e si g n e r:

C h e ck e d

A p p ro ve d of 14

SHEET TITLE

ELECTRICAL ABBREVATIONS

AND LEGEND

I/R DATE DESCRIPTION

ISSUE/REVISION

YYYY-MM-DD

SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER

1539948659E

10 4

Gavin Mandery

Gold in

C on

12in AC

15in Concrete

8in C lay

12in DI

4i n

C la y4in C lay

4i n

C la y

12in DI

12in DI in

C on

4in C lay

4i n

C la y

8in Clay

4i n

C la y in

A C

8in Clay

12in AC

12in DI 12in DI

4i n

C la y

12in DI

12in DI

4in C lay

RAMP 12

RAMP 12

F ile

P

:\E N

V \B ea le

A F

B \6

C o n ce p t

D e si g n s a nd

S u p p o rt

S e rv ic e s\

-C

A D

-G

IS

\9

G

IS

-G ra p h ic s\ B rid g e s\

D e si g n

S he e ts

\S h e e t C

-0

F

O R

C E

M A

IN

.m xd D a te

T h u rs d a y, J u n e

5, 0 150 30075

Feet

Department of the Army

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95811 www.aecom.com

Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers 1645 South 101st East Avenue Tulsa, OK

Three Bridges Conceptual Design

BEALE, AFB, CALIFORNIA

CONTRACT NO. W912BV-10-D-2006 TASK 0012

AECOM PROJECT NO. 60307690

9th Civil Engineering Squadron and Air Combat Command Beale Air Force Base

I/R DATE DESCRIPTION

THREE BRIDGES

SANITARY SEWER CIVIL LAYOUT

C-014 of 14

PROJECT

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER

ISSUE\REVISION

CONSULTANT

CLIENT

PLAN NOTES

1,500 FT. 6” C900 PVC FORCEMAIN MINIMUM 3’ BURY.

PUMP STATION, VALVE MH. SEE DRAWING M-01

NEW MH. INV. EL. 152.40 AT CONNECTION TO EXISTING SEWER.

10’ OF 12” C900 GRAVITY FROM NEW MH TO PUMP STATION.

EXISTING SANITARY SEWER AND MANHOLES ABANDON PER EDBTM.

BRIDGE CROSSING SEE STRUCTURAL SHEETS FOR SUPPORTS. INSTALL FLEXIBLE EPANSION /DEFLECTION JOINT SIMILAR TO EBAA FLEX TEND AT EACH END OF THE BRIDGE SPAN. INSTALL EPANSION JOINT AT PIPE

MATERIAL TRANSITION. TRANSITION FROM DUCTILE IRON EXPOSED TO PVC BURIED.

NEW MH. PROVIDE REMOVEABLE ODOR FILTER AT RIM.

10’ OF 12” C900 GRAVITY FROM NEW MH TO MH970

EXISTING MH 970 INV. EL. 147.75.

100 FT SAWCUT ASPHALT. REPAIR IN KIND.

GENERAL NOTES

SEE GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS IN EAR (AECOM, 2014).

CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN STANDARDS PROVIDED IN EAR (AECOM, 2014).

ALL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN. UTILITY LOCATION CONFIRMATION REQUIRED FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.

FIELD VERIFY ALL ELEVATIONS.

EROSION CONTROL MEASURES PER INDUSTRY STANDARDS.

DO NOT CONDUCT WORK OUTSIDE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. SEE EA.

AIR VACUMUM RELIEF POINTS NOT SHOWN.

1539948659E Rectangle

1539948659E Line

1539948659E

! 4

Gavin Mandery

Gold

4 154 15

4 15

156 15 in

C on

12in AC

12in DI

15in Concrete

8in C lay

4i n

C la y

4i n

C la y in

C on

12in DI

4in C lay

4i n

C la y

12in DI 12in DI

12in DI

12in DI

8in Clay

4i n

C la y 4i n

C la y

8in Clay

4in C lay

12in DI

4in C lay in

A C

12in AC

RAMP 12

RAMP 12

F ile

P

:\E N

V \B ea le

A F

B \6

C o n ce p t

D e si g n s a nd

S u p p o rt

S e rv ic e s\

-C

A D

-G

IS

\9

G

IS

-G ra p h ic s\ B rid g e s\

D e si g n

S he e ts

\S h e e t C

-0

T h re e

B ri d g e s.

m xd

D a te

T h u rs d a y, J u n e

5, 0 150 30075

Feet

Department of the Army

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95811 www.aecom.com

Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers 1645 South 101st East Avenue Tulsa, OK

Three Bridges Conceptual Design

BEALE, AFB, CALIFORNIA

CONTRACT NO. W912BV-10-D-2006 TASK 0012

AECOM PROJECT NO. 60307690

9th Civil Engineering Squadron and Air Combat Command Beale Air Force Base

I/R DATE DESCRIPTION

THREE BRIDGES

LAYOUT - COMMUNICATION

AND ELECTRICAL EXTENSIONS

C-025 of 14

PROJECT

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER

ISSUE\REVISION

CONSULTANT

CLIENT

PLAN NOTES

GENERAL NOTES

300 FT OF 2-4” COMMUNICATION CONDUITS. SEE SHEET E-02. ROUTE FROM PUMP STAITON TO HH206N.

100 FT SAWCUT ASPHALT. REPAIR IN KIND.

COMMUNICATION PULL HH206N. NO FIBER AT LOCATION. RUN FROM ANOTHER HAND HOLE TO HERE

LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED.

300 FT BURIED ELECTRICAL EXTENSION.

EXISTING COMMUNICATION PULL BOX.

EXISTING COMMUNICATION 2-1" ROLL PIPES, EMPTY. REPLACE WITH 6" STEEL BRIDGE CROSSING TO SUPPORT

2 CONTINOUS 2" ROLL PIPES. SEE EAR.

PROVIDE 4-4" STEEL CONDUITS MOUNTED TO BRIDGES FOR FUTURE ELECTRICAL USE. TERMINATE IN NEW

ELECTRICAL MANHOLES AT END OF EACH BRIDGE CROSSING.

SEE GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS IN EAR (AECOM, 2014).

CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN STANDARDS PROVIDED IN EAR (AECOM, 2014).

ALL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN. UTILITY LOCATION CONFIRMATION REQUIRED FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.

FIELD VERIFY ALL ELEVATIONS.

EROSION CONTROL MEASURES PER CALTRANS STANDARDS.

DO NOT CONDUCT WORK OUTSIDE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. SEE EA.

1539948659E

Printed on ___% Post-Consumer

KEY PLAN

CONSULTANT

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95811 www.aecom.com

CLIENT

Department of the Army Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers 1645 South 101st East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma

9th Civil Engineering Squadron and Air Combat Command Beale Air Force Base

PROJECT

Three Bridges Upgrade Conceptual Design

BEALE, AFB, CALIFORNIA

Contract No. W912BV-10-D-2006 TASK 0012 AECOM Project No. 60307690

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

A N

SI

D

2" x

4" La st s av ed b y:

W

AL

TZ

T

(2

4-

-0 9) as t P lo tte d:

4-

-0

Fi le na m e:

P :\B

E

AL

E

AF

B\

_S

TR

U

C

TU

R E

S\

0- C

A D

-G

IS

\0

_S

TR

U C

TU

R

AL

\S

H

EE

TS

\T

H R

EE

B

R

ID

G

ES

.D W

G P ro je ct M an ag em en t I ni tia ls

D es ig ne r:

C he ck ed

A pp ro ve d:

of 14

SHEET TITLE

KEY PLAN

SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER

1539948659E

KEY PLAN

CONSULTANT

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95811 www.aecom.com

CLIENT

Department of the Army Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers 1645 South 101st East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma

9th Civil Engineering Squadron and Air Combat Command Beale Air Force Base

PROJECT

Three Bridges Upgrade Conceptual Design

BEALE, AFB, CALIFORNIA

Contract No. W912BV-10-D-2006 TASK 0012 AECOM Project No. 60307690

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

A N

SI

D

2" x

4" La st s av ed b y:

W

AL

TZ

T

(2

4-t P lo tte d:

4-

-0

Fi le na m e:

P :\B

E

AL

E

AF

B\

_S

TR

U

C

TU

R E

S\

0- C

A D

-G

IS

\0

_S

TR

U C

TU

R

AL

\S

H

EE

TS

\T

H R

EE

B

R

ID

G

ES

.D W

G P ro je ct M an ag em en t I ni tia ls

D es ig ne r:

C he ck ed

A pp ro ve d:

of 14

SHEET TITLE

BRIDGE OVER BEST SLOUGH

OVERFLOW (BR NO. 3111)

SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER

1539948659E Rectangle

1539948659E

KEY PLAN

CONSULTANT

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95811 www.aecom.com

CLIENT

Department of the Army Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers 1645 South 101st East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma

9th Civil Engineering Squadron and Air Combat Command Beale Air Force Base

PROJECT

Three Bridges Upgrade Conceptual Design

BEALE, AFB, CALIFORNIA

Contract No. W912BV-10-D-2006 TASK 0012 AECOM Project No. 60307690

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

A N

SI

D

2" x

4" La st s av ed b y:

W

AL

TZ

T

(2

4-t P lo tte d:

4-

-0

Fi le na m e:

P :\B

E

AL

E

AF

B\

_S

TR

U

C

TU

R E

S\

0- C

A D

-G

IS

\0

_S

TR

U C

TU

R

AL

\S

H

EE

TS

\T

H R

EE

B

R

ID

G

ES

.D W

G P ro je ct M an ag em en t I ni tia ls

D es ig ne r:

C he ck ed

A pp ro ve d:

of 14

SHEET TITLE

BRIDGE OVER BEST SLOUGH

(BR NO. 3112)

SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER

1539948659E Rectangle

1539948659E

KEY PLAN

CONSULTANT

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95811 www.aecom.com

CLIENT

Department of the Army Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers 1645 South 101st East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma

9th Civil Engineering Squadron and Air Combat Command Beale Air Force Base

PROJECT

Three Bridges Upgrade Conceptual Design

BEALE, AFB, CALIFORNIA

Contract No. W912BV-10-D-2006 TASK 0012 AECOM Project No. 60307690

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

A N

SI

D

2" x

4" La st s av ed b y:

W

AL

TZ

T

(2

4-t P lo tte d:

4-

-0

Fi le na m e:

P :\B

E

AL

E

AF

B\

_S

TR

U

C

TU

R E

S\

0- C

A D

-G

IS

\0

_S

TR

U C

TU

R

AL

\S

H

EE

TS

\T

H R

EE

B

R

ID

G

ES

.D W

G P ro je ct M an ag em en t I ni tia ls

D es ig ne r:

C he ck ed

A pp ro ve d:

of 14

SHEET TITLE

BRIDGE OVER DRY CREEK

OVERFLOW (BR NO. 3113)

SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER

1539948659E Rectangle

1539948659E

KEY PLAN

CONSULTANT

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

2020 L Street Sacramento, CA 95811 www.aecom.com

CLIENT

Department of the Army Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers 1645 South 101st East Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma

9th Civil Engineering Squadron and Air Combat Command Beale Air Force Base

PROJECT

Three Bridges Upgrade Conceptual Design

BEALE, AFB, CALIFORNIA

Contract No. W912BV-10-D-2006 TASK 0012 AECOM Project No. 60307690

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

A N

SI

D

2" x

4" La st s av ed b y:

W

AL

TZ

T

(2

4-t P lo tte d:

4-

-0

Fi le na m e:

P :\B

E

AL

E

AF

B\

_S

TR

U

C

TU

R E

S\

0- C

A D

-G

IS

\0

_S

TR

U C

TU

R

AL

\S

H

EE

TS

\T

H R

EE

B

R

ID

G

ES

.D W

G P ro je ct M an ag em en t I ni tia ls

D es ig ne r:

C he ck ed

A pp ro ve d:

of 14

SHEET TITLE

BRIDGE OVER DRY CREEK

SHEET TITLE

BRIDGE OVER DRY CREEK

(BR NO. 3114)

I/R DATE DESCRIPTION

ISSUE/REVISION

SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER

1539948659E Rectangle

1539948659E

APPENDIX B

TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS

APPENDIX C

GEOTECHNICAL STUDY

\Initial AECOM 717 17th Street, Suite 2600 Denver, CO 80202 www.aecom.com

303 228 3000 tel 303 228-3001 fax

Technical Memorandum

This memorandum summarizes a review of soil borings and foundation recommendations for replacement of four bridges along Gavin Mandry Drive on Beale AFB, California.

1.0 Background

AECOM understands that four bridges are being considered for replacement; two over a branch and the main channel of Best Slough Creek, and two over a branch and the main channel of Dry Creek. The bridges extend from approximately station 18+35 to 29+25 along Gavin Mandry Drive.

2.0 Subsurface Exploration

A total of six soil borings were completed from November 7-8, 2013. The borings were completed just off the shoulder of the approach embankments of the existing bridges by Cascade Drilling, Inc., under subcontract to AECOM. The locations of the borings are shown on the attached location diagram.

The borings were extended to depths of 15 to 41 feet below surface grades using hollow-stem auger and split-spoon sampling techniques, and were logged in the field by an AECOM geologist. Three of the six borings were blank-drilled (without sampling) through the embankment fill. Those borings have a P-designation. The three borings sampled full-depth have a B-designation. The information from Borings B-101 and P-102 is shared between adjacent bridges.

Soil samples were recovered at 2.5- to 5-foot sampling intervals. Selected soil samples were sent to a subcontract laboratory for completion of various index tests, which along with the field drilling notes, were used to compile the formal boring logs that are appended.

To Andy Shepard Pages 4

CC Tom Barnard

Subject Recommendations for Foundation Construction Beale AFB – Gavin Mandry Drive Bridge Replacement AECOM Project Number 60307690

From Elliott Drumright, James Niehoff

Date May 8, 2014

Technical Memorandum – Bridge Replacement May 8, 2014 Beale AFB, California Page 2

3.0 Subgrade Conditions

Bridge Station 18+35 to 18+55 (Branch of Best Slough Creek)

From an estimated surface El. 155 feet, Borings P-101 and B-101 encountered loose to medium dense gravel fill over sand fill to 7 feet, followed by alluvial deposits of stiff, lean clay to 10 feet, then silty to clayey sand with varying gravel content to the top of claystone bedrock at 30 feet (El. 125). Both borings were terminated into the claystone bedrock (40.8 and 36.5 feet respectively at P-101 and B-101).

The deeper granular deposits are loose to medium dense from 10 to 18 feet in B-101 (east side of bridge), and medium dense to very dense in P-101 (west side of bridge). The near-surface groundwater table was encountered at 12 feet (El. 143) below the surface grade at Boring B-101, and should be close to the level of Best Slough and Dry Creek. The water table in Boring P-101 was at 26 feet (El. 129) and is not considered reliable.

Bridge Station 19+40 to 21+20 (Best Slough Creek)

From an estimated surface El. 154 to 155 feet, Borings B-101 and P-102 encountered loose to medium dense gravel fill over sand fill to 7 feet, followed by alluvial deposits of stiff, lean clay to 10 feet, then by interlayered, stiff, lean clay or clean, silty or clayey sand with varying gravel content to the top of claystone bedrock at 30 feet (El. 125). Boring B-101 was terminated into the claystone bedrock (40.8 feet below grade). Boring P-102 terminated due to sampling refusal (with no recovery), but at a comparable El. 127.

The deeper alluvial deposits are granular and loose to medium dense from 10 to 18 feet in B-101 (west side of bridge), and are interlayered sands (medium dense) and sandy clays in P-101 (east side of bridge). The near-surface groundwater table was encountered at 10 to 12 feet (El. 143 to 144) below the surface grade at the borings, and should be close to the level of Best Slough and Dry Creek.

Bridge Station 25+60 to 27+00 (Branch of Dry Creek)

From an estimated surface El. 155 to 156 feet, Borings B-102 and P-103 encountered loose silty sand fill to 8 to 11 feet from grade, followed by alluvial deposits of dense to extremely dense, well-graded gravelly sand or sandy gravel to auger refusal depth (16.5 and 17.1 feet below grade, respectively).

The near-surface groundwater table was encountered at 12 to 14 feet (El. 142 to 143) below the surface grade at Boring B-102 and P-103, and should be close to the level of Best Slough and Dry Creek.

Beale AFB, California Page 3

Bridge Station 28+55 to 29+25 (Dry Creek)

From an estimated surface El. 155 to 156 feet, Borings P-103 and B-103 encountered medium dense to loose, silty sand fill to 7.4 to 11 feet from grade, followed by alluvial deposits of dense to extremely dense, poorly-graded gravel, well-graded gravelly sand or sandy gravel to auger refusal depth (17.1 and 15.2 feet below grade, respectively).

The near-surface groundwater table was encountered at 8.5 to 14 feet (El. 142 to 143) below the surface grade (El. 142 to 147.5) at Borings P-103 and B-103, and should be close to or slightly above the level of Best Slough and Dry Creek.

4.0 Recommendations

Based on the soil boring results, the replacement bridges may be supported on either spread footing foundations or relatively short drilled piers.

Spread Footings

We understand that the base elevation of the abutment foundations and (where required) intermediate piers will be chosen based on considerations of scour and allowable bearing pressure. Assuming scour is acceptable, we recommend the following allowable bearing pressures vs. depth range for each replacement bridge.

Bridge Sta. Allowable Bearing Pressure / Comments (approx.) (Elev. Range)

18+35 to 18+55 2,000 psf (El. 136 to 146) Recompact looser zone 5,000 psf (El. 125 to 136) El. 136 to 146 (typ. B-101) 10,000 psf (below El. 125)

19+40 to 21+20 2,000 psf (El. 136 to 146) Recompact looser zone 5,000 psf (El. 125 to 136) El. 136 to 146 typ. (B-101) 10,000 psf (below El. 125)

25+60 to 27+00 5,000 psf (El. 139 to 145) *10,000 psf (below El. 139)

28+55 to 29+25 5,000 psf (El. 141 to 147) *10,000 psf (below El. 141)

Note: * Use 6 feet minimum cover above footing in very dense granular deposits.

Beale AFB, California Page 4

Settlement of spread footings constructed in the upper native soils at the 2,000 or 5,000 psf allowable bearing pressures, is expected to be ¾-inch or less, with most of the settlement occurring during construction. Settlement of spread footings constructed in the bedrock is estimated to be ¼-inch or less.

Drilled Piers

We recommend the following allowable bearing pressure vs. depth range for each replacement bridge. Although stopping drilled piers at the upper bearing levels noted above for spread footings is technically possible, problems with groundwater intrusion into the bottom of the shafts could be problematic. Therefore, the bearing depths for drilled piers are assumed to extend a minimum distance into the lower permeability bedrock.

Bridge Sta. Allowable Bearing Pressure / Comments (approx.) (Elev. Range)

18+35 to 18+55 10,000 psf (below El. 125) Minimum penetration 2 ft into claystone bedrock

19+40 to 21+20 10,000 psf (below El. 125) Minimum penetration 2 ft into claystone bedrock

25+60 to 27+00 10,000 psf (below El. 139) Minimum penetration 2 ft into greenstone bedrock

28+55 to 29+25 10,000 psf (below El. 141) Minimum penetration 2 ft into greenstone bedrock

Of note, there appears to be a change in bedrock type and top elevation between the western two bridges over Best Slough (sedimentary claystone), and the eastern two bridges over Dry Creek (metavolcanic greenstone).

Settlement of drilled piers constructed using casing such that relatively clean bottoms can be obtained, is expected to be ¼ inch or less.

5.0 Construction Considerations

Groundwater: At the time the borings were completed, the near surface groundwater table was, as expected, close to the level of the associated creeks, typically El. 142 to 143 feet).

Since most of the native soils below that elevation and above bedrock are granular in nature, foundation construction below the water table will be subject to variable inflows that

Beale AFB, California Page 5 must be managed. If water inflow or loosening of the foundation soils is problematic and the subgrade soils are firm, a 6-inch-thick mud concrete mat or a 12-inch-thick layer of compacted, open-graded, crushed stone (3/4- to 1-1/2-inch size with no fines or sand fraction), may be placed in the bottom of the excavation as a direct support layer for the associated foundation.

Loose Subgrade Soils: In Boring B-101 which was assumed as typical for the east abutment of Bridge 18+35 to 18+55 and the west abutment of Bridge 19+40 to 21+20, the specific subgrade soils from approximately El. 136 to 146 are loose or at the lower end of medium dense (by SPT blow count).