Document Blackfoot_doc_93c56f4fec

Alternatives Analysis for Runway 1-19 South End Improvements McCarley Field Airport Blackfoot, Idaho Prepared For: The City of Blackfoot and the Federal Aviation Administration Prepared By: Ardurra Group, Inc. 2471 S. Titanium Place Meridian ID 83642 June 2024 ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations iii Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of this Report 1 1.2 Airport Overview 1 1.3 Environmental Setting 4 1.4 Regulatory Context 4 1.5 Airport 2017 Master Plan Update 5 1.5.1 ARC Designation 5 1.5.2 Design Deficiencies 6 1.5.3 Runway Length 1.6 Proposed Action 1.7 Purpose and Need 1.7.1 Purpose 1.7.2 Need Alternatives Analysis 2.1 Alternatives Background 2.1.1 No Action Alternative 2.1.2 Greenbelt Alternatives 2.1.3 Runway Alternatives 2.2 Alternatives Screening Process and Evaluation Criteria 2.2.1 Screening Process 2.2.2 Evaluation Criteria 2.2.3 Alternatives Analysis Assumptions 2.3 Alternatives Discussion 2.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action 2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Retaining Wall Design - Proposed Action 2.3.3 Alternative 3 – Earthen Embankment Design 2.3.4 Alternative 4 – Column Footings 2.3.5 Alternative 5 – Driven Piles Design 2.3.6 Alternative 6 – Shorten Runway 1-19 by 400 Feet ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report iii 2.3.7 Alternative 7 – Shift Runway 1-19 by 400 Feet 2.4 Alternatives Analysis 2.4.1 Alternatives Evaluation Conclusion Appendix A. Agency Coordination Appendix B. Preliminary Design Exhibits Appendix C. Preliminary Cost EstimatE List of Figures Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2: Current Layout- Utilizing Full Runway Length 8 Figure 3: Runway Displacement by 195 Feet 9 Figure 4: Proposed New Pathway Impacts to Jensen's Lake: Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 .14 Figure 5: Re-Aligned Pathway Footprint: Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Figure 6: Retaining Wall Cross-Section Exhibit, Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Figure 7: Earthen Embankment Cross-Section Exhibit, Alternative 3 Figure 8: Column Footings Cross-Section Exhibit, Alternative 4 Figure 9: Driven Piles Cross-Section Exhibit, Alternative 5 Figure 10: Alternative 6- Shorten Runway 1-19 by 400 feet Figure 11: Alternative 7- Shift Runway 1-19 by 400 feet ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report ii List of Photos Photo 1. Jensen’s Lake with McCarley Field Airport visible in background. Source: Ardurra, 2019. 3 Photo 2. The Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt with Jensen’s Lake to the west and the Airport’s Runway 1-19 to the east. Source: Ardurra 2019. 3 Photo 3. Jensen Grove Park with a boat launch in the foreground. Source: Ardurra, 2019. 4 Photo 4. Blackfoot Golf Course. Source: blackfootgc.com 4 Photo 5. Example of path situated on a retaining wall design (note: proposed design would include a handrail as depicted in the figure below). Source: Google Images. Photo 6. Example of the existing earthen embankment along the Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt next to the Airport. Source: Ardurra, 2022. Photo 7. Example path with column footings. Source: Google images. Photo 8. Example path with driven piles. Source: Google images. List of Tables Table 1: Alternatives Analysis (Including Alternative 1, No Action). ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAC Aircraft Approach Category AC Advisory Circular ADG Airplane Design Group AGIS Airports Geographic Information Systems ARC Airport Reference Code ASDA Accelerate-Stop Distance Available CY Cubic Yards EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration GA General Aviation IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality IDL Idaho Department of Lands IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources LDA Landing Distance Available LWCF Land and Water Conservation Funds MOS Modification of Standards MPU Master Plan Update NAVAIDS Navigational Aids NEPA National Environmental Policy Act O&M Operation and Maintenance OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark PAPI Precision Approach Path Indicator ROFA Runway Object Free Area ROFZ Runway Obstacle Free Zone RPZ Runway Protection Zone SF Square Feet TODA Takeoff Distance Available TORA Takeoff Run Available USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers UST Underground Storage Tank WOTUS Water of the United States ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope of this Report The purpose of this report is to evaluate alternatives that address non-standard conditions within the Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) and Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ) at the southern end of Runway 1-19 at McCarley Field Airport (Airport) in Blackfoot, Idaho, and to identify a preferred alternative that complies with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards associated with the ROFA and ROFZ and best avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to environmental resources. Refer to Section 1.6 and 1.7 for additional details regarding the purpose and need for the proposed action. The non-standard conditions that are the focus of this report include segments of the Airport perimeter fence and Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt (Greenbelt) that are within the ROFA and ROFZ of Runway 1-19. These non-standard conditions were identified in the Airport’s 2017 Master Plan Update (MPU) along with three potential alternatives to bring the Airport into compliance. However, an additional three alternatives were reviewed to consider the potential impacts to Section 4(f) resources to make a total of six alternatives that are described in the following sections. Alternatives are presented and analyzed in Section 2.0. The prudent and feasible alternative that best reduces impacts to environmental resources, particularly Section 4(f) resources, and addresses non-standard conditions related to the Runway 1 ROFA and ROFZ, is carried forward as the Proposed Action. 1.2 Airport Overview The Airport property encompasses approximately 80 acres and is owned by the City of Blackfoot (Sponsor). The City of Blackfoot (population 12,702) is the county seat of Bingham County (population 49,923) and is located mid-way between the Cities of Pocatello and Idaho Falls, Idaho.1 The Airport is situated between Interstate 15 and US Highway 91. Surrounding land uses include recreational, agricultural, residential, and commercial uses. Figure 1, Project Vicinity Map, depicts the location of the Airport relative to the City of Blackfoot and surrounding properties. The Airport was founded in 1946 and originally consisted of an unpaved airstrip in a southwest-northeast alignment. In 1952, the runway was paved and re-aligned to a north-south orientation. Over time, the runway was extended, hangars were added, and facilities were constructed to aid Airport operations. 1 United States Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program. 2022. Quick Facts: Bingham County, Idaho; Blackfoot city, Idaho; United States. Accessed October 25, 2023, at: ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report As the Airport developed, so did the City of Blackfoot and the surrounding infrastructure. Construction of Interstate 15 began in 1957 along the old alignment of US Highway 91. During the construction of Interstate 15, the Snake River was relocated to the west side of Interstate 15. Straightening the Snake River created an oxbow lake (now known as Jensen’s Lake), which is directly southwest of the Airport (Photo Since the State of Idaho (State) owns the land under all rivers and lakes navigable at the time of statehood, the State still owns the former riverbed of the Snake River (Jensen’s Lake) adjacent to the Airport. The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) is the agency that manages Idaho’s public trust lands. In the 1970s, the City of Blackfoot Department of Parks & Recreation began converting these newly formed lands for recreational use, resulting in multiple parks and recreational facilities near the Airport, including the 12-foot wide ADA accessible Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt (Photo Jensen’s Grove Park (Photo Blackfoot Golf Course (Photo and Airport Park, shown in Figure 1. In 1994, portions of the Greenbelt and Jensen’s Lake were deeded by IDL to the City of Blackfoot under release and quitclaim. Thus, the section of the Greenbelt and the Airport perimeter fence within the ROFA/ROFZ are now contained within Parcel RP1316600, which is on Airport property (refer to Appendix Today, the Airport is a general aviation (GA) airport open to public use. According to the FAA, it has a designated Airport Reference Code (ARC) of B-I Small. The Airport currently has a single 4,311-foot-long asphalt runway with a full-length parallel taxiway. Photo 2 depicts the section of the Greenbelt that is adjacent to the Airport perimeter fence and within the ROFA and ROFZ. Photo 2. Jensen’s Lake with McCarley Field Airport visible in background. Source: Ardurra, 2019. Photo 2. The Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt with Jensen’s Lake to the west and the Airport’s Runway 1-19 to the east. Source: Ardurra 2019. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report 1.3 Environmental Setting The Airport is at an elevation of 4,491 feet above sea level and is located in a semi-arid climate with hot summers, cold winters, and frequent winds. The Airport property is developed with Airport infrastructure and landscaped vegetation, which is managed to reduce attractiveness to hazardous wildlife. Residential and commercial properties border the Airport to the south. Recreational and water resources, described below, surround the Airport to the west, north and east. Interstate 15 is approximately 0.2 miles to the northwest and separates the Airport from the Snake River. Recreational resources in the immediate vicinity of the Airport include Airport Park, Jensen Grove Park, Blackfoot Golf Course, the Greenbelt, and Jensen's Lake (refer to Figure 1, and Photos 1-4). Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 6(f) funding was utilized by the City of Blackfoot to develop Jensen Grove Park. 1.4 Regulatory Context Each of the aforementioned recreational resources are protected under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, (now codified at 49 U.S.C. § 303) (Section Section 4(f) states that subject to exceptions for de minimis impacts, FAA may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of land of significant publicly owned public parks or recreation areas, only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the using that land and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. Alternatives that would cause a “use” of Section 4(f) resources would require FAA consultation with the official(s) with jurisdiction over the resource, which in this case is the City of Blackfoot. The term “use” has a very specific meaning under Section 4(f). According to FAA Order 1050.1F, a Section 4(f) “use” would occur if the proposed action or alternative(s) would involve an actual physical taking of Section 4(f) property Photo 4. Jensen Grove Park with a boat launch in the foreground. Source: Ardurra, 2019. Photo 4. Blackfoot Golf Course. Source: blackfootgc.com ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report through purchase of land or a permanent easement, physical occupation of a portion or all of the property, or alteration of structures or facilities on the property. A temporary occupancy of a Section 4(f) property for project construction-related activities is usually so minimal that it does not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(f). However, a temporary occupancy would be considered a use if: • The duration of the occupancy of the Section 4(f) property is greater than the time needed to build a project and there is a change in ownership of the land, • The nature and magnitude of changes to the 4(f) property are more than minimal, • Anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts would occur and a temporary or permanent interference with Section 4(f) activities or purposes would occur, • The land use is not fully returned to existing condition, or • There is no documented agreement with appropriate agencies having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property. Jensen’s Lake contains 44 acres of open water and is a recharge site for the Eastern Snake River Plain Sole Source Aquifer. In addition to being under State jurisdiction, Jensen’s Lake is considered a “Water of the US” or a WOTUS. As such, it is jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Alternatives that impact Jensen’s Lake will require consultation and/or permitting with the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 1.5 Airport 2017 Master Plan Update The Airport’s 2017 MPU designated the ARC for the Airport as ARC B-I (Small) and identified several Airport design deficiencies related to the southern end of Runway 1- 19, along with alternatives to address these deficiencies. 1.5.1 ARC Designation An airport’s ARC is largely based on two components of the critical aircraft. The critical aircraft is defined as the most demanding aircraft that regularly uses the airport (500 or more annual operations).2 The two components of the critical aircraft are the Aircraft Approach Category (AAC) and Airplane Design Group (ADG). The AAC is designated by a letter (A through E) representing the speed of the aircraft on approach to a runway, while the ADG is designated by a Roman Numeral (I through VI) which represents the largest dimension of the aircraft, either wingspan or tail height. The combination of the critical aircraft’s AAC and ADG represents the ARC. The ARC then determines the design requirements and physical facility requirements of an airport. 2 U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. AC 150/5000-17, Critical Aircraft and Regular Use Determination, June 20, 2017. Accessed October 23, 2023, at ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report The 2017 MPU determined the critical aircraft to be the Turbo Commander 690-A.3 The Turbo Commander 690-A is considered a small aircraft with an approach speed of 100 knots (AAC B) and tail height and wingspan of 14.95 feet and 46.55 feet,4 respectively (ADG This classifies the McCarley Field Airport as an ARC B-I (Small) facility. 1.5.2 Design Deficiencies The 2017 MPU identified the following non-standard conditions at the Airport for an ARC B-I (Small) facility at the Runway 1 end: 1. The Airport does not have full control of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), ROFA, and ROFZ. 2. The ROFA and ROFZ do not meet FAA design standards of a 250-foot width. 3. There are incompatible land uses within the Runway 1 RPZ. If the Airport does not conform to FAA design standards for the RPZ, ROFA, and ROFZ, or receive a Modification of Standards (MOS) on areas of non-compliance, the Airport risks losing future federal funding. To prevent loss of federal funding, multiple alternatives were established as part of the 2017 MPU to address the identified deficiencies. Runway Protection Zone The RPZ is a trapezoidal area at ground level that extends outward from the runway threshold for a set distance along the runway centerline.5 In accordance with ARC B-I (Small) standards, the RPZ begins 200 feet beyond each runway threshold and is 250 feet wide, extending outward by 1,000 feet long by 450 feet wide (see Figure 2 for the Runway 1 RPZ). The use of declared distances or displaced runway thresholds, further described below, may affect the beginning and ending of an RPZ. Per FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190-4B,6 the purpose of the RPZ is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground by keeping the area clear of incompatible land uses buildings, recreational facilities, roads, and above ground utilities). According to FAA guidance,7 although it is ideal to clear all objects from an RPZ, some uses are permitted providing they are outside of the ROFA and do not interfere with navigational aids (NAVAIDs). Additionally, while it is desirable for an airport to control the land underlying the RPZ, it is not required. Not all land uses are permitted within the RPZ, and the Airport must obtain a Modification of Standards (MOS) by the FAA for any incompatible land uses. 3 While larger aircraft (Air Tractor 602 and Air Tractor 802), use the Airport seasonally for agricultural spray operations and surpass 500 annual operations, they are not based at the Airport and only operate on clear days with calm wind conditions. Aside from the seasonal use by the Air Tractors, the Turbo Commander 690-A represents the most demanding aircraft that regularly uses the Airport. 4 U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Aircraft Characteristics Database. Accessed October 25, 2023, at 5 Federal Aviation Administration. 2022. Advisory Circular 150/5300-13B. Airport Design. Accessed on September 17, 2023. 6 Federal Aviation Administration. 2022. Advisory Circular 150/5190-4B on Airport Land Use Compatibility. Accessed Oct 1, 2023, at 7 Federal Aviation Administration. 2022. Advisory Circular 150/5190-4B on Airport Land Use Compatibility. Accessed Oct 1, 2023, at ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report The 2017 MPU identified a portion of the land within the Runway 1 RPZ that is not under Airport control and includes incompatible land uses. First, the Greenbelt travels through the RPZ for approximately 1,200 feet. Additionally, there are several Jensen Grove Park facilities located within the RPZ including the parking lot, docks, restrooms, and the Greenbelt pathway. Finally, East Airport Road and Wildrose Lane—both City of Blackfoot public roads—and two local businesses (a restaurant and an office building) all reside within the RPZ (see Figure As part of the 2017 MPU, the FAA approved an alternative to implement declared distances and displace the Runway 1 threshold (and associated RPZ) by 195 feet to the north. This reduces the Landing Distance Available (LDA) for Runway 1 by 195 feet, and the Accelerate-Stop Distance Available (ASDA), Takeoff Run Available (TORA), and LDA for Runway 19 by 195 feet. The Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) for Runway 1-19 will be maintained at the full 4,311 feet or runway physically available. The displaced threshold will remove two existing buildings (restaurant and office building) from the RPZ (see Figure 3) and bring a larger portion of the RPZ under Airport control. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Figure 2: Current Layout- Utilizing Full Runway Length ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Figure 3: Runway Displacement by 195 Feet ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Displacement of the Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet leaves the following incompatible land uses within the Runway 1 RPZ: portions of East Airport Road and Wildrose Lane; Greenbelt pathway; Jensen’s Grove Park parking lot; two Jensen’s Grove Park docks; and Jensen’s Grove Park restrooms (see Figure Removal of these incompatible land uses from the RPZ is not considered reasonable and feasible at this time due to the substantial capital cost and scale of impacts to Section 4(f) resources. As a result, removal of these incompatible land uses is not contemplated further in this report. Runway Object Free Area The ROFA is a two-dimensional area on the ground surrounding the runway that should be clear of objects except for items fixed by their function NAVAIDs).8 In accordance with ARC B-I (Small) Standards, the ROFA for the Airport extends 125 feet on either side of the runway centerline (total width of 250 feet), and 250 feet beyond the runway ends (see Figure 3 for the ROFA at the Runway 1 end). The purpose of the ROFA is to provide a clear area for air and ground navigation, including wingtip protection in the event of an aircraft excursion from the runway. FAA design standards do not allow permanent construction or temporary storage of anything within the ROFA that an airplane could strike during landing, departure, or ground maneuvering unless the object must be located inside the ROFA to perform its function NAVAIDs). The land encompassing the ROFA should be controlled by the Airport. Following the 195-foot Runway 1 threshold displacement, the objects that infringe on the Runway 1 ROFA are the Airport perimeter fence, located approximately 120 feet west of the runway centerline at its nearest point, and the Greenbelt immediately west of the perimeter fence. The length of the Airport perimeter fence and Greenbelt within the ROFA is approximately 145 feet. Runway Object Free Zone The ROFZ is the three-dimensional airspace surrounding the runway that must be clear of obstacles for protection of aircraft landing and taking off from the runway and for missed approaches. In accordance with ARC B-I (Small) standards, the ROFZ dimensions are 125 feet on either side of the runway centerline (total width of 250 feet), 200 feet beyond the runway ends, and 150 feet above ground level. As shown in Figure 3, the ROFZ and the ROFA largely encompass the same area along the runway (ROFA extends an additional 50 feet) while the ROFZ protects airspace 150 feet above ground level. Following the 195-foot Runway 1 threshold displacement, the objects that infringe on the Runway 1 ROFZ mirror the ROFA (noted above). 8 Federal Aviation Administration. 2022. Advisory Circular 150/5300-13B. Airport Design. Accessed on September 17, 2023. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report 1.5.3 Runway Length The 2017 MPU states that the actual physical length of Runway 1-19 is shorter than the recommended length per Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design to accommodate 100% of the current fleet mix. Shortening of the runway pavement further increases the potential for the aircraft currently using the Airport to veer off or overrun the runway, and for aircraft to be unable to remain airborne after take-off. The displacement of the Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet will maintain the TODA for Runway 1-19 at the full 4,311 feet of available runway length. 1.6 Proposed Action Following the displacement of the Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet, the Sponsor proposes to relocate approximately 145 feet of the Greenbelt and Airport perimeter fence to remove them from within the ROFA and ROFZ. The Proposed Action would shift the Greenbelt and perimeter fence approximately 16 feet west of their current position to accommodate the width of the paved Greenbelt pathway, associated fill shoulders, and space for the Airport perimeter fence. Construction of the relocated section of Greenbelt would utilize a retaining wall structure to minimize the area of impact in the Jensen’s Lake. Ten (10) existing pathway lights will be relocated to align with the proposed path location. The preliminary design exhibits for the proposed action are in included in Appendix B. 1.7 Purpose and Need 1.7.1 Purpose The purpose of the project is to improve safety at the Airport by addressing non- standard conditions. In particular, the purpose of the proposed action is to bring the ROFA and ROFZ safety areas at the southern end of Runway 1-19 into compliance with FAA standards. To accomplish this, improvements and modifications must be made to facilities at the Airport to address the non-standard conditions associated with incompatible land uses within the ROFA and ROFZ identified in the 2017 MPU. 1.7.2 Need The Proposed Action is needed because the Airport’s 2017 MPU identified deficiencies at the southern end of the Runway 1-19, which include non-standard conditions associated with the ROFA and ROFZ. The need is in accordance with FAA AC 150/5300- 13B, Airport Design, which indicates that the “ROFA is a clear area limited to equipment necessary for air and ground navigation, and provides wingtip protection in the event of an aircraft excursion from the runway.” The Proposed Action will improve safety for aircraft, people, and property on the ground by relocating portions of the Greenbelt and Airport perimeter fence outside of the ROFA and ROFZ. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 2.1 Alternatives Background Six Action Alternatives and one No Action Alternative have been developed. The presented Alternatives were derived from FAA coordination and selection of reasonable alternatives from the 2017 MPU. Previous discussions with the FAA have confirmed that the displacement of the Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet will occur in the near term. Therefore, all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, illustrate the displaced Runway 1 threshold. The developed alternatives are intended for the Airport to meet ARC B-I (Small) standards related to the Runway 1 ROFA and ROFZ, and to minimize potential impacts to Section 4(f) resources. Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) does displace the Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet but does not include any improvements to the ROFA or ROFZ. The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for which Action Alternatives can be developed and compared. Alternatives 2 through 7 (Action Alternatives) provide options to remove obstructions from the ROFA and ROFZ and offer the Airport full control of the ROFA and ROFZ. Alternatives 2 through 5 propose shifting the Greenbelt alignment out of the Runway 1 ROFA and ROFZ (see Figure 4 and Figure while Alternatives 6 and 7 involve shortening or shifting the existing runway to remove obstructions from the ROFA and ROFZ (refer to Section 2.3.6 and Section 2.3.7). 2.1.1 No Action Alternative Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) maintains the existing conditions and implements the approved 195-foot Runway 1 threshold displacement for RPZ compliance, as illustrated in Figure 3. Although the No Action Alternative does not address the existing design deficiencies and incompatible land uses, it does serve as a comparative baseline when compared to the Action Alternatives. 2.1.2 Greenbelt Alternatives Alternatives 2 through 5 focus on relocating portions of the Greenbelt and Airport perimeter fence to be outside of the ROFA and ROFZ area (see Figure 4 and Figure The primary difference between Alternatives 2 through 5 is the method in which the Greenbelt is constructed, and its subsequent impact on Jensen’s Lake. Preliminary design exhibits (Appendix B) were prepared for the Greenbelt Alternatives to estimate impacts to Jensen’s Lake and the Greenbelt, which are both Section 4(f) resources. Following displacement of the Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet, the total area of the Greenbelt and Airport perimeter fence within the ROFA and ROFZ will be reduced, but not entirely removed (please refer to Figure 2 and Figure 3 for comparison). In order to remove the remainder of the Greenbelt and perimeter fence from within the ROFA and ROFZ, both need to be shifted approximately 16 feet west of their current position. This shift is necessary to accommodate the size of the Greenbelt pathway, associated fill shoulders, relocated pathway lighting, and displaced Airport perimeter fence. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report The Greenbelt Alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 5) would all require temporary closure of the subject segment of the Greenbelt for construction and minor shift of the Greenbelt Pathway toward/within Jensen’s Lake to permanently shift the Greenbelt pathway, associated lighting, and Airport perimeter fence outside of the ROFA/ROFZ. All would involve alteration of structures or facilities on the Greenbelt and in Jensen’s Lake. Impacts to the resources and to the users of the resources would be temporary in nature. No change in land ownership would be required. The resources would be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. As a result, after substantial analysis it has been determined that the Greenbelt Alternatives would all cause “use”, likely de minimis, of Jensen’s Lake and the Greenbelt Pathway. Because the 16-foot shift would encroach upon Jensen’s Lake, a narrowing of the Greenbelt pathway was initially considered. However, reducing the Greenbelt’s width would likely constitute a “use” of the Section 4(f) property as it would reduce the capacity and accessibility of the pathway and potentially adversely affect the activities supported by the Greenbelt. As a result, reducing the width of the path was not contemplated further. Alternatives 2 through 5 are developed with the following needs in mind: 1) to remove the portions of the existing perimeter fence and Greenbelt that are inside the ROFA and ROFZ; 2) to smoothly transition and connect the relocated and existing portions of the Airport perimeter fence and Greenbelt; and 3) to minimize the discharge of fill material into Jensen’s Lake in accordance with relevant Clean Water Act permitting requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Figure 4: Proposed New Pathway Impacts to Jensen's Lake: Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Figure 5: Re-Aligned Pathway Footprint: Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report 2.1.3 Runway Alternatives Alternatives 5 and 6 would modify the position and available length of Runway 1-19 to remove obstructions in the Runway 1 ROFA and ROFZ. These alternatives were added following consultation with FAA and an amendment to the scope of work for this report, dated May 4, 2020. While Alternatives 5 and 6 meet ARC B-I (Small) standards for the ROFA and ROFZ, and avoid impacts to the Greenbelt and Jensen’s Lake, these Alternatives involve substantial construction costs and introduce other unfavourable conditions, noted below. Alternative 5 would shorten the Runway 1 end by 400 feet, which requires runway demolition, taxiway reconfiguration and construction, and runway light relocation. Combined with 195-foot Runway 1 threshold displacement, Alternative 5 would reduce the available runway length by 595 feet. Alternative 6 would shift Runway 1-19 by 400 feet to the north, which requires runway demolition and construction, taxiway demolition and construction, runway light relocation, perimeter fence relocation, and significant land acquisition. Further, Alternative 6 would extend the Runway 19 ROFA and ROFZ into the Blackfoot Golf Course, a Section 4(f) resource, requiring golf course reconfiguration. 2.2 Alternatives Screening Process and Evaluation Criteria 2.2.1 Screening Process Alternatives were initially screened using a two-step screening process: • Step 1 screening considered the ability of the alternative to meet the Purpose and Need. • Step 2 screening evaluated whether each alternative was technically feasible and reasonable in terms of comparative safety, policy, environmental, social, or economic consequences. Alternatives that passed the initial two step screening process, and the No Action Alternative were then assessed and scored based on the evaluation criteria described in the following section to determine the preferred alternative (Proposed Action). 2.2.2 Evaluation Criteria To determine which alternative will best address non-standard conditions associated with the Runway 1 ROFA and ROFZ at the Airport, the following evaluation criteria were established: FAA Design Standards/Recommendations for an ARC B-1 (Small) facility: ROFA/ROFZ, RPZ, and Runway length Environmental Considerations: Water Resources and Section 4(f) Resources Economic Considerations: Permitting, Compensatory Mitigation, Operation and Maintenance and Total Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report A score between 0 (worst/incompatible) and 5 (best/fully compatible) was assigned for each of the evaluation criteria for each alternative. The final ranking for each alternative is based on the sum of its scores. Each evaluation criterion and subsequent rating are discussed further in this section. Section 2.3 provides a narrative for each alternative relating to the evaluation criteria. In Section 2.4, Table 1 summarizes the criterion scoring for each alternative carried forward and overall ranking of alternatives. Criteria 1: FAA Design Standards and Recommendations ROFA and ROFZ The FAA Design Standards criterion rates the ability of each alternative to remove incompatible land uses from both the ROFA and ROFZ (described in Section 1.4.2). A rating of 5 will be given if the alternative meets FAA design standards for the ROFA and ROFZ. A rating of 0 will be given if the alternative does not meet FAA design standards for the ROFA and ROFZ and will be eliminated from further consideration. RPZ The criterion considers whether the alternative maintains existing compatible FAA design standards for the RPZ, or results in new compliance issues. A rating of 5 will be given if the alternative meets FAA design standards for the RPZ. A rating of 4 will be given if the alternative maintains existing compatible FAA design standards for the RPZ. A rating of 0 will be given if the alternative introduces new obstructions or incompatible land uses into the RPZ and will be eliminated from further consideration. Runway Length As noted in Section 1.4.3, the 2017 MPU states Runway 1-19 is already shorter than the recommended length necessary to accommodate 100% of the fleet mix, and further reductions could pose a safety hazard for aircraft and those on or near the runway. The displacement of the Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet has been approved and will occur in the near term. The displacement reduces the LDA for Runway 1 by 195 feet, and the ASDA, TORA, and LDA for Runway 19 by 195 feet. The TODA for Runway 1-19 will be maintained at the full 4,311 feet or runway physically available. Therefore, a rating of 4 will be given to any alternative that implements the 195-foot Runway 1 threshold displacement and maintains a TODA of 4,311 feet. Any alternative that reduces the TODA for Runway 1-19 will be given a rating of 0 and is not reasonable in terms of comparative safety and will be eliminated from further consideration. Criteria 2: Environmental Considerations Water Resources The Water Resources criterion takes into consideration the impacts to Jensen’s Lake based on the estimated area of impact in square feet (SF) and quantity of fill in cubic yards (CY) below the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) for each alternative per preliminary design calculations and the estimated OHWM elevation. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Alternatives that discharge fill into Jensen’s Lake will be rated from 0 (worst) to 4 (best) based on the area and quantity of fill. Alternatives that do not impact Jensen’s Lake will receive a rating of 5. Once the alternative is selected, the impacts will be accurately quantified through final design, OHWM verification, and the federal and state permitting process. Section 4(f) Resources The Section 4(f) Resources criterion assesses the level of permanent impacts, and duration and magnitude of temporary construction impacts, that each alternative has on Section 4(f) resources, which include Jensen’s Lake, the Greenbelt, and the Blackfoot Golf Course. Alternatives that impact Section 4(f) resources will be rated from 0 (worst) to 4 (best) based on the severity of permanent impact and from 0 (worst) to 4 (best) based on duration and magnitude of temporary construction impacts. Alternatives that have no impact on Section 4(f) resources will receive a rating of 5 for both permanent and temporary impacts to Section 4(f) Resources. Criteria 3: Economic Considerations Permitting/Compensatory Mitigation To better understand future permitting and mitigation requirements, preliminary agency coordination was conducted with IDWR, USACE, EPA and IDFG (Appendix IDWR confirmed that a Stream Channel Alteration Permit would not be required for any impacts to Jensen’s Lake. The USACE confirmed that the proposed project would be expected to meet general permit conditions and a Nationwide Permit would be expected to be appropriate for fill into Jensen’s Lake. The EPA concluded that Greenbelt relocation activities would have no significant impact on the Eastern Snake River Plain Sole Source Aquifer. Lastly, IDFG concluded that Greenbelt relocation activities are unlikely to have impacts to fish or wildlife populations, and no mitigation activities were requested. Therefore, this criterion assesses the permitting and/or mitigation requirements for each alternative using the information provided by the agencies (Appendix and existing mitigation thresholds. Alternatives that do not require any permit or mitigation will receive a rating of 5. Alternatives that require permitting, but no mitigation will receive a rating of 4. Alternatives that do require mitigation will receive a rating of 0 (worst) to 3 (best) depending on the type and level of mitigation required. O&M Requirements This criterion assesses the long-term maintenance needs of each alternative. Alternatives that maintain existing maintenance activities will receive a rating of 4. Alternatives that require additional maintenance will be rated from 0 (worst) to 3 (best) based on the level of maintenance required and long-term maintenance concerns. This criterion also considers snow removal activities, which are performed by the Airport Sponsor (City of Blackfoot) for the Airport and the Greenbelt. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Total Cost The Total Cost criterion assesses the cost of construction for each alternative based on preliminary estimates shown in Appendix C. While capital plays a vital role in the project planning, cost does not automatically eliminate an alternative. Only where the alternative is deemed unreasonably expensive is cost considered a limiting factor. Alternatives will be rated from 0 (worst) to 5 (best) based on the total estimated cost of construction. Though the No Action Alternative assumes no project costs, it is affiliated with hidden costs due to the potential loss of FAA funding at the Airport. Therefore, Alternative 1 is considered neutral, with a rating of 3. 2.2.3 Alternatives Analysis Assumptions In the analyses for Alternatives 2-5, a curvilinear Greenbelt design is assumed, including a portion of the Greenbelt to be placed in Jensen’s Lake (see Figure It is assumed that to create a smooth transition between existing and new Greenbelt, each path construction method may require different amounts of demolition of the existing path alignment. Likewise, the path construction method will dictate the length of path to encroach into Jensen’s Lake to safely and smoothly shift the Greenbelt outside of the ROFA/ROFZ. The estimated cost of construction and estimated impacts to Jensen’s Lake (SF, CY) are preliminary and subject to change upon further project development and analysis. 2.3 Alternatives Discussion 2.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative maintains the existing conditions and implements the approved 195-foot displacement for RPZ compliance, as illustrated in Figure 3. FAA Design Standards and Recommendations ROFA and ROFZ Under Alternative 1, approximately 145 feet of the Greenbelt and Airport perimeter fence would remain obstructions within ROFA and ROFZ and create non-standard conditions for an ARC B-1 (Small) facility. Further, the Airport would not have full control of the ROFA and ROFZ and no improvements to safety would be made. RPZ Incompatible land uses will remain within the Runway 1 RPZ which include: portions of East Airport Road; portions of Wildrose Lane; the Greenbelt pathway; Jensen’s Grove Park parking lot; two Jensen’s Grove Park docks; and Jensen’s Grove Park restrooms. Runway Length The 195-foot Runway 1 threshold displacement will reduce the LDA for Runway 1 from 4,311 to 4,119 feet, and reduce the LDA, ASDA, and TORA for Runway 19 from 4,311 to 4,119 feet. The TODA for Runway 1-19 will be maintained at 4,311 feet. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Environmental Considerations Water Resources Impacts Alternative 1 will have no impact on water resources, as it maintains existing conditions. Section 4(f) Resources Impacts The Greenbelt, a Section 4(f) resource, will remain within the ROFA and ROFZ resulting in a continued safety risk to the public utilizing the pathway. Alternative 1 will not impact additional recreational resources, as it maintains existing conditions. Economic Considerations Permitting/Compensatory Mitigation Alternative 1 will have no impact on water resources, and therefore, will not require a USACE permit nor require mitigation. O&M Requirements Existing maintenance activities, such as snow plowing, will be continued by the City of Blackfoot. Total Cost Alternative 1 requires no additional construction costs. However, if the Airport does not conform to FAA design standards or receive a MOS for areas of non-compliance, the Airport risks losing future federal funding. Conclusion Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) does not meet the Purpose and Need (fails Step 1 of screening process) as it does not improve safety or address non-standard conditions in the ROFA/ROFZ. However, the No Action Alternative is carried forward to serve as a baseline comparison for scoring of the retained alternatives. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report 2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Retaining Wall Design - Proposed Action Alternative 2 uses a retaining wall within the Jensen’s Lake footprint to shift the path of the Greenbelt and the perimeter fence to outside of the ROFA/ROFZ. Photo 5 shows an example retaining wall, and Figure 6 illustrates a cross-section design of the retaining wall for the Greenbelt relocation. The preliminary design exhibits are in Appendix B. Photo 5. Example of path situated on a retaining wall design (note: proposed design would include a handrail as depicted in the figure below). Source: Google Images. Figure 6: Retaining Wall Cross-Section Exhibit, Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report FAA Design Standards and Recommendations ROFA and ROFZ Under Alternative 2, the Airport will comply with FAA design standards for the ROFA and ROFZ required for an ARC B-I (Small) facility. RPZ Incompatible land uses will remain within the Runway 1 RPZ which include: portions of East Airport Road; portions of Wildrose Lane; the Greenbelt pathway; Jensen’s Grove Park parking lot; two Jensen’s Grove Park docks; and Jensen’s Grove Park restrooms. Runway Length The 195-foot Runway 1 threshold displacement will reduce the LDA for Runway 1 from 4,311 to 4,119 feet, and reduce the LDA, ASDA, and TORA for Runway 19 from 4,311 to 4,119 feet. The TODA for Runway 1-19 will be maintained at 4,311 feet. Environmental Considerations Water Resources Impacts Alternative 2 will discharge approximately 1.7 CY of fill within 30 SF of Jensen’s Lake. Section 4(f) Resources Impacts Alternative 2 will require temporary closure of the subject segment of the Greenbelt for construction and permanent impacts within Jensen’s Lake to permanently shift the Greenbelt pathway, associated lighting, and Airport perimeter fence outside of the ROFA/ROFZ. Impacts will be temporary in nature. No change in land ownership will be required. The scope of work is minor, and the resources will be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. De minimis “use” of both the Jensen’s Lake and the Greenbelt Pathway Section 4(f) properties is expected. Economic Considerations Permitting/Compensatory Mitigation Discharge of fill material below the OHWM of Jensen’s Lake will require a Section 404 Nationwide Permit and a 401 Water Quality Certification from IDEQ. No compensatory mitigation will be required for the project as impacts to WOTUS are expected to be less than the 0.10-acre threshold associated with USACE Nationwide Permits. O&M Requirements Changes in maintenance work related to snow removal may be required due to the proximity of the handrail and perimeter fence. Due to the proximity of the proposed handrail and perimeter fence, Alternative 2 may modify the snow removal maintenance process for the City of Blackfoot. Total Cost The estimated construction cost of Alternative 2 is approximately $512,540. This includes construction of the retaining wall, new section of the Greenbelt pathway, perimeter fence, and relocated lights with a 20% contingency (see Appendix This estimate is preliminary and actual construction costs are subject to change. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Conclusion Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) meets the Purpose and Need (meets Step 1 of screening process) and is technically feasible and reasonable in terms of comparative safety, policy, environmental, social, or economic consequences (meets Step 2 of screening process). Alternative 2 is carried forward for comparative analysis. 2.3.3 Alternative 3 – Earthen Embankment Design Alternative 3 extends the earthen embankment into Jensen’s Lake in order to shift the Greenbelt and the perimeter fence outside of the ROFA/ROFZ. Photo 6 shows the existing earthen embankment along the Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt. Figure 7 illustrates a cross-section design of the earthen embankment that would be specific to the Greenbelt relocation. Preliminary design exhibits are in Appendix B. Alternative 3 was developed to match existing Greenbelt design while meeting FAA design standards for the ROFA/ROFZ. Photo 6. Example of the existing earthen embankment along the Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt next to the Airport. Source: Ardurra, 2022. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report FAA Design Standards and Recommendations ROFA and ROFZ Under Alternative 3, the Airport will comply with FAA design standards for the ROFA and ROFZ required for an ARC B-I (Small) facility. RPZ Incompatible land uses will remain within the Runway 1 RPZ which include: portions of East Airport Road; portions of Wildrose Lane; the Greenbelt pathway; Jensen’s Grove Park parking lot; two Jensen’s Grove Park docks; and Jensen’s Grove Park restrooms. Runway Length The 195-foot Runway 1 threshold displacement will reduce the LDA for Runway 1 from 4,311 to 4,119 feet, and reduce the LDA, ASDA, and TORA for Runway 19 from 4,311 to 4,119 feet. The TODA for Runway 1-19 will be maintained at 4,311 feet. Environmental Considerations Water Resources Impacts Alternative 3 will discharge approximately 696.2 CY of fill within 10,854 SF of Jensen’s Lake. Section 4(f) Resources Impacts Alternative 3 will require temporary closure of the subject segment of the Greenbelt for construction and permanent impacts within the footprint of Jensen’s Lake associated with permanently shifting the Greenbelt pathway, associated lighting, and Airport perimeter fence outside of the ROFA/ROFZ. Impacts will be temporary in nature. There will be no change in land ownership. The scope of work is minor, and the resources will be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the Figure 7: Earthen Embankment Cross-Section Exhibit, Alternative 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report project. De minimis “use” of both the Jensen’s Lake and the Greenbelt Pathway Section 4(f) properties is expected. Economic Considerations Permitting/Compensatory Mitigation Requirements Discharge of fill material below the OHWM will require a Section 404 Nationwide Permit and a 401 Water Quality Certification from IDEQ. As impacts to WOTUS (Jensen’s Lake) exceed 0.10-acre (4,356 SF), compensatory mitigation would be required by the USACE to offset the impacts. As no established mitigation bank’s service area covers Jensen’s Lake, permittee responsible mitigation to offset impacts to Waters of the US would be required. Any proposed mitigation plan will require the Airport to perform annual monitoring and adaptive management to ensure success. O&M Requirements Existing maintenance activities by the City of Blackfoot, such as snow plowing, will be continued. Total Cost The estimated construction cost of Alternative 3 is approximately $295,412. This includes construction of the earthen embankment, new section of Greenbelt path, perimeter fence, and lights, with a 20% contingency (see Appendix This estimate is preliminary and actual construction costs are subject to change. Conclusion Alternative 3 meets the Purpose and Need (meets Step 1 of screening process) and is technically feasible and reasonable in terms of comparative safety, policy, environmental, social, or economic consequences (meets Step 2 of screening process). Alternative 3 is carried forward for comparative analysis. 2.3.4 Alternative 4 – Column Footings Design Alternative 4 will construct a new portion of the Greenbelt with column footings with a steel deck extending into Jensen’s Lake. Photo 7 shows an example pathway with column footings. Figure 8 illustrates a cross-section design of the column footing specific to the Greenbelt relocation. Preliminary design exhibits are in Appendix B. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Photo 7. Example path with column footings. Source: Google images. Figure 8: Column Footings Cross-Section Exhibit, Alternative 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report FAA Design Standards and Recommendations ROFA and ROFZ Under Alternative 4, the Airport will comply with FAA design standards for the ROFA and ROFZ required for an ARC B-I (Small) facility. RPZ Incompatible land uses will remain within the Runway 1 RPZ which include: portions of East Airport Road; portions of Wildrose Lane; the Greenbelt pathway; Jensen’s Grove Park parking lot; two Jensen’s Grove Park docks; and Jensen’s Grove Park restrooms. Runway Length The 195-foot Runway 1 threshold displacement will reduce the LDA for Runway 1 from 4,311 to 4,119 feet, and reduce the LDA, ASDA, and TORA for Runway 19 from 4,311 to 4,119 feet. The TODA for Runway 1-19 will be maintained at 4,311 feet. Environmental Considerations Water Resources Impacts Alternative 4 will discharge approximately 0.7 CY of fill within 19 SF of Jensen’s Lake. Section 4(f) Resources Impacts Alternative 4 will require temporary closure of the subject segment of the Greenbelt for construction and permanent impacts within the footprint of Jensen’s Lake associated with permanently shifting the Greenbelt pathway, associated lighting, and Airport perimeter fence outside of the ROFA/ROFZ. Impacts will be temporary in nature. There will be no change in land ownership. The scope of work is minor, and the resources will be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. De minimis “use” of both the Jensen’s Lake and the Greenbelt Pathway Section 4(f) properties is expected. Economic Considerations Permitting/Compensatory Mitigation Discharge of fill material below the OHWM will require a Section 404 Nationwide Permit and 401 Water Quality Certification from IDEQ. No compensatory mitigation will be required for the project as impacts to WOTUS will be less than the 0.10-acre threshold for requiring compensatory mitigation associated with USACE Nationwide Permits. O&M Requirements Additional maintenance work to plow snow will be required by the City of Blackfoot due to the proximity of the handrail and perimeter fence. In addition, the concrete deck with open air below may require additional deicing treatment efforts to prevent icing on the pathway. Total Cost The estimated construction cost of Alternative 4 is approximately $741,521. This includes construction of the column footings and steel deck, new section of Greenbelt path, perimeter fence, and lights, with a 20% contingency (see Appendix This estimate is preliminary and actual construction costs are subject to change. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Conclusion Alternative 4 meets the Purpose and Need (meets Step 1 of screening process) and is technically feasible and reasonable in terms of comparative safety, policy, environmental, social, or economic consequences (meets Step 2 of screening process). Alternative 4 is carried forward for comparative analysis. 2.3.5 Alternative 5 – Driven Piles Design Alternative 5 will construct a new portion of the Greenbelt using driven piles with a steel deck extending into Jensen’s Lake. 8 shows an example pathway with driven piles. Figure 9 illustrates a cross-section design of the steel deck with driven piles specific to the Greenbelt relocation. Preliminary design exhibits are in Appendix B. Photo 8. Example path with driven piles. Source: Google images. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report FAA Design Standards and Recommendations ROFA and ROFZ Under Alternative 5, the Airport will comply with FAA design standards for the ROFA and ROFZ required for an ARC B-I (Small) facility. RPZ Incompatible land uses will remain within the Runway 1 RPZ which include: portions of East Airport Road; portions of Wildrose Lane; the Greenbelt pathway; Jensen’s Grove Park parking lot; two Jensen’s Grove Park docks; and Jensen’s Grove Park restrooms. Runway Length The 195-foot Runway 1 threshold displacement will reduce the LDA for Runway 1 from 4,311 to 4,119 feet, and reduce the LDA, ASDA, and TORA for Runway 19 from 4,311 to 4,119 feet. The TODA for Runway 1-19 will be maintained at 4,311 feet. Environmental Considerations Water Resources Impacts The placement of the driven piles will not result in the discharge of fill material and the deck supporting the Greenbelt pathway will be above the OHWM of Jensen’s Lake resulting in no water resource impacts. Section 4(f) Resources Impacts Alternative 5 will require temporary closure of the subject segment of the Greenbelt for construction and permanent impacts within the footprint of Jensen’s Lake associated Figure 9: Driven Piles Cross-Section Exhibit, Alternative 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report with permanently shifting the Greenbelt pathway, associated lighting, and Airport perimeter fence outside of the ROFA/ROFZ. Impacts will be temporary in nature. There will be no change in ownership. The scope of work is minor, and the resources will be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. De minimis “use” of both the Jensen’s Lake and the Greenbelt Pathway Section 4(f) properties is expected. Economic Considerations Permitting/Compensatory Mitigation Alternative 5 will not involve the discharge of fill material into Waters of the US, and therefore, will not require a Section 404 permit or 401 Water Quality Certification. No mitigation is required. O&M Requirements Additional maintenance work will be required by the City of Blackfoot to plow snow due to the proximity of the pathway handrail and airport perimeter fence. In addition, the steel deck with open air below may require additional deicing treatment efforts to prevent icing on the pathway. Total Cost The estimated construction cost of Alternative 5 is approximately $754,529. This includes construction of the driven piles and steel deck, new section of Greenbelt path, perimeter fence, and lights, with a 20% contingency (see Appendix This estimate is preliminary and actual construction costs are subject to change. Conclusion Alternative 5 meets the Purpose and Need (meets Step 1 of screening process) and is technically feasible and reasonable in terms of comparative safety, policy, environmental, social, or economic consequences (meets Step 2 of screening process). Alternative 5 is carried forward for comparative analysis. 2.3.6 Alternative 6 – Shorten Runway 1-19 by 400 Feet Alternative 6 was added as an alternative following discussions with the FAA and Work Order Amendment #1 dated May 4, 2020. This runway-focused alternative involves shortening Runway 1-19 by removing 400 feet from the Runway 1 end. This alternative does not affect the Greenbelt (Figure 10) or require fill into Jensen’s Lake. The purpose of Alternative 6 is to shift the location of the ROFA/ROFZ northward by 400 feet, which would result in removing the Greenbelt and Airport perimeter fence from the ROFA/ROFZ. Shortening the Runway 1 end by 400 feet will also remove all buildings from the Runway 1 RPZ. Alternative 6 requires the following tasks: 1. Remove approximately 28,000 SF of runway pavement at the Runway 1 end. 2. Remove approximately 23,500 SF of Taxiway A Connector pavement. 3. Construct approximately 11,000 SF of Taxiway A Connector pavement to connect with the new shortened Runway 1 end. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report 4. Remove 1,200 SF of pavement markings and add 2,500 SF of pavement markings. 5. Reconfigure stormwater drainage facilities. 6. Conduct Airports Geographic Information Systems (AGIS) survey to relocate the Runway 1 end. 7. Relocate Runway 1-19 and Taxiway A lighting, Runway 1 Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) lights with new foundations, and five Taxiway A signs with foundations. FAA Design Standards and Recommendations ROFA and ROFZ Under Alternative 6, the Airport will comply with FAA design standards for the ROFA and ROFZ required for an ARC B-I (Small) facility. RPZ Under this alternative, there is no need to displace the Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet, as shortening the runway by 400 feet at the Runway 1 end would remove all the structures from the RPZ (see Figure 10). However, some incompatible land uses will remain within the Runway 1 RPZ, which include: portions of East Airport Road; the Greenbelt pathway; Jensen’s Grove Park parking lot; and two Jensen’s Grove Park docks. Runway Length Shortening the Runway 1 end by 400 feet would reduce the length available for landing and take-off on Runway 1-19 in both directions. As discussed in Section 1.4.3, Runway 1- 19 is already shorter than the recommended length per AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design that would be necessary to accommodate 100% of the fleet mix. Shortening the runway could also pose a safety hazard for aircraft and those on or near the runway, as it increases the potential for aircraft to veer off/overrun the runway, and for aircraft to be unable to remain airborne after take-off. Recreational facilities exist within the RPZ off both ends of the runway (Jensen’s Lake and Jensen’s Grove Park off the Runway 1 end and the Blackfoot Golf Course off the Runway 19 end). Shortening the runway would also reduce the ability of existing aircraft to safely use the runway, decreasing safety in these recreation areas. Alternative 6 will have the greatest impact on Airport operations and safety. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Figure 10: Alternative 6- Shorten Runway 1-19 by 400 feet ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Environmental Considerations Water Resources Impacts Alternative 6 would have no impact on water resources. Section 4(f) Resources Impacts Alternative 6 would not affect Jensen’s Lake or the Greenbelt, which are Section 4(f) recreational resources. Economic Considerations Permitting/Compensatory Mitigation Requirements Alternative 6 will have no impact on water resources, and therefore, will not require a Section 404 permit or 401 Water Quality Certification. No mitigation is required. O&M Requirements Existing maintenance activities, such as snow removal, will be continued by the City of Blackfoot. Total Cost Alternative 6 involves the demolition of 400 feet of runway pavement (28,000 SF) and the Taxiway A Connectors (23,500 SF) at the Runway 1 end and constructing approximately 11,000 SF of new Taxiway A Connectors to tie into the new, shortened Runway 1 end. Following demolition of the Runway 1 end, an AGIS survey will be completed to relocate the runway end, with estimated costs of approximately $135,000. The existing taxiway signs, runway and taxiway lighting, and Runway 1 end PAPI will need to be relocated. Lastly stormwater drainage facilities and pavement markings will need to be updated. In total, the project cost for Alternative 6 is approximately $963,648, which includes a 20% contingency (see Appendix This estimate is preliminary and actual construction costs are subject to change. Conclusion Alternative 6 results in a loss of usable runway length at the Airport and would result in new safety risks. Therefore, Alternative 6 does not meet the Purpose and Need (fails Step 1 of the screening process) and is eliminated from further consideration. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report 2.3.7 Alternative 7 – Shift Runway 1-19 by 400 Feet Alternative 7 was added as an alternative following discussion with the FAA and Work Order Amendment #1 dated May 4, 2020. This alternative proposes shifting Runway 1-19 400 feet north by removing 400 feet from the Runway 1 end (as discussed in Alternative 6) and adding 400 feet to the Runway 19 end (see Figures 10 and 11). This shift would also require construction of an extension to Taxiway A and new Taxiway A connectors to match the extended Runway 19 end. The Runway 19 RPZ would also be fully fenced to provide full control of the Runway 19 RPZ. This alternative does not affect the Greenbelt or discharge any fill into Jensen’s Lake. The purpose of Alternative 7 is to shift the location of the ROFA/ROFZ northward by 400 feet, which would result in removing the Greenbelt and Airport perimeter fence from the ROFA/ROFZ, while maintaining the existing runway length. Alternative 7 requires the following tasks: 1. Remove approximately 28,000 SF of runway pavement at the Runway 1 end. 2. Remove approximately 56,000 SF of Taxiway A Connector pavement on both runway ends. 3. Construct approximately 30,000 SF of runway pavement at the Runway 19 end. 4. Construct approximately 31,000 SF of Taxiway A Connector pavement on both runway ends. 5. Remove 2,800 SF of pavement markings and add 5,000 SF of pavement markings. 6. Reconfigure stormwater drainage facilities. 7. Conduct an AGIS survey to relocate the Runway 1-19 ends. 8. Relocate Runway 1-19 and Taxiway A lighting, and PAPIs with new foundations at both runway ends. 9. Relocate 10 Taxiway A signs with foundations. 10. Remove approximately 865 feet of existing fence and install approx. 3,070 feet of fence to border the extent of the new Runway 19 RPZ. 11. Acquire approximately 11.7 acres of Blackfoot Golf Course through avigation easement and/or fee simple purchase. 12. Relocate Blackfoot Golf Course Hole 1 to outside of the Runway 19 RPZ. FAA Design Standards and Recommendations ROFA and ROFZ Under Alternative 7, the Airport will comply with FAA design standards for the ROFA and ROFZ required for an ARC B-I (Small) facility. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Figure 11: Alternative 7- Shift Runway 1-19 by 400 feet ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report RPZ Under this alternative, there is no need to displace the Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet, as shortening the runway by 400 feet at the Runway 1 end would remove all the structures from the RPZ (see Figure 10). However, some incompatible land uses will remain within the Runway 1 RPZ, which include: portions of East Airport Road; the Greenbelt pathway; Jensen’s Grove Park parking lot; and two Jensen’s Grove Park docks. Runway Length Alternative 7 will maintain the existing runway length. Environmental Considerations Water Resources Impacts Alternative 7 will have no impact on water resources. Section 4(f) Resources Impacts Alternative 7 will not affect Jensen’s Lake or the Greenbelt that are Section 4(f) resources; however, the shifted runway will extend the Runway 19 end ROFA, ROFZ and RPZ into the Blackfoot Golf Course, which is also a Section 4(f) resource. In order to remove the golf course from the ROFA, ROFZ, and RPZ, this alternative would acquire via fee simple or avigation easement approximately 11.7 acres of the golf course to bring it under Airport control. Existing trees within the 11.7-acre area would also have to be removed following land acquisition so that they do not obstruct the Runway 19 approach and departure surfaces. The land acquisition would remove ‘Hole 1’ of the course and require reconfiguration of the 18-hole golf course. These impacts to the Blackfoot Golf Course would require a Full Section 4(f) Evaluation by the FAA. It is unlikely FAA could approve the substantial use of the Section 4(f) resource since there are feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives to the “use” of land from the Blackfoot Golf Course. Economic Considerations Permitting/Compensatory Mitigation Alternative 7 will have no impact on water resources, and therefore, will not require a Section 404 permit or 401 Water Quality Certification. No compensatory mitigation would be required. In addition to being protected under Section 4(f) as a recreational resource, the Blackfoot Golf Course may also be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Blackfoot Golf Course is more than 50 years old (meeting age criteria) with ground-breaking in 1956 and play on the first nine holes in 1960. The golf course is also associated with a significant person in history (Criterion Specifically, the golf course architect and former golf professional, George Von Elm was an American professional golfer most noted for his amateur career. From 1924 to 1931, Von Elm was among the best players in the world. Therefore, there is strong evidence that the golf course is potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. A cultural resources investigation ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report would be required should Alternative 7 be implemented. If the Blackfoot Golf Course is determined NHRP-eligible, any adverse impacts would require mitigation, which is a and often costly process. O&M Requirements Existing maintenance activities, such as snow removal, will be continued by the City of Blackfoot. Total Cost Alternative 7 will demolish 400 feet of runway pavement (28,000 SF) at the Runway 1 end, and 56,000 SF of Taxiway A connectors at both runway ends. Approximately 30,000 SF of new runway pavement and 31,000 SF of new Taxiway A connectors will need to be constructed at the Runway 19 end. Following the pavement removal and construction, an AGIS survey will be completed to relocate the runway end, with estimated costs of approximately $135,000. The existing taxiway signs, runway and taxiway lighting, and PAPIs at both runway ends will need to be relocated. Approximately 865 linear feet of fencing would be removed, to be replaced by approximately 3,070 linear feet of fence around the new Runway 19 RPZ. Stormwater drainage facilities and pavement markings will also need to be reconfigured and updated. Alternative 7 will also require land acquisition estimated at $100,000 per acre. The relocation of Hole 1 was estimated at $1.6 million to cover the costs of removing Hole 1 from the RPZ and restructuring the Blackfoot Golf Course to maintain 18 holes. This cost estimate considers the loss of acreage available to the golf course, construction, and planning costs of restructuring the course, and the costs to reconfigure the existing utilities and irrigation infrastructure.9 In total, the estimated project cost for Alternative 7 is approximately $6,288,935, which includes a 20% contingency (see Appendix Cost estimates provided here are preliminary; actual acquisition (fee simple purchase and/or avigation easement) and construction costs are subject to change. Conclusion Alternative 7 meets the Purpose and Need of the project (meets Step 1 of screening process). However, it is unlikely the FAA could approve the substantial use of the Section 4(f) resource since there are feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives to the “use” of land from the Blackfoot Golf Course. Additionally, the cost of Alternative 7 would be prohibitively expensive. Alternative 7 fails Step 2 of the screening process. Therefore, Alternative 7 is eliminated from further consideration. 9 Kallem, K. 2021. Cost estimate for reconfiguration of a golf course. Personal communication with Golf Professional Kris Kallem at Fairways Golf Course, Cheney, WA on February 22, 2021. (509) 280-4024. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report 2.4 Alternatives Analysis Alternatives 2 through 5 meet the Purpose and Need (meet Step 1 of screening process) and are technically feasible and reasonable in terms of comparative safety, policy, environmental, social, or economic consequences (meet Step 2 of screening process). These action alternatives have been carried forward for comparative analysis to determine a preferred alternative. Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) does not meet the Purpose and Need. However, it has been carried forward to serve as a baseline for a comparison. A score between zero (worst/incompatible) and five (best/fully compliant) is assigned for each of the evaluation criteria for each alternative carried forward for comparative analysis. The final ranking for each Alternative is based on the sum of its criteria scores. 2.4.1 Alternatives Evaluation Alternatives 2 through 5, or the Action Alternatives, focus on relocating the Greenbelt and Airport perimeter fence outside of the ROFA and ROFZ area, with variations in the method of construction. The No Action Alternative is carried forward to serve as a comparative baseline. Table 1: Alternatives Analysis summarizes the scores for Alternative 1 (No Action) and the Action Alternatives. Alternatives Evaluation Discussion Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, maintains existing conditions, including the incompatible land uses in the ROFA and ROFZ. While Alternative 1 ranks low on potential impacts to environmental resources, it does not meet necessary FAA design standards and therefore is not a viable alternative. Alternative 1 received a score of 30. Alternatives 2 through 5 rank the same in their temporary construction impacts to Section 4(f) resources and their ability to meet and/or maintain FAA design standards and recommendations for the ROFA, ROFZ, RPZ, and Runway length. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action - Retaining Wall) would discharge 1.7 CY of fill (30 SF) within Jensen’s Lake. Construction will require a USACE Nationwide Permit and a Section 4(f) evaluation or de minimis determination for physical “use” of the Greenbelt and Jensen’s Lake. However, no mitigation will be required. The cost of construction is $512,540, close to the average of cost of each Action Alternative. Changes to snow removal procedures may be required around the handrail and fence. Alternative 2 received a score of 34. Alternative 3 (Earthen Embankment) would discharge 969 CY of fill (10,854 SF) within Jensen’s Lake. Construction will require a USACE Nationwide Permit and permittee- responsible mitigation and monitoring to offset impacts to Jensen’s Lake. A Section 4(f) evaluation or de minimis determination for physical “use” of the Greenbelt and Jensen’s Lake will also be required. The cost of construction is the lowest out of the Action Alternatives, at $295,412. No changes to existing maintenance activities will be required. Alternative 3 received a score of 32. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Alternative 4 (Column Footings) would discharge 0.7 CY of fill (19 SF) within Jensen’s Lake. Construction will require a USACE Nationwide Permit and a Section 4(f) evaluation or de minimis determination for physical “use” of the Greenbelt and Jensen’s Lake. However, no mitigation will be required. The cost of construction is $741,521, second to the highest of the Action Alternative costs. Changes to snow removal procedures may be required around the handrail and perimeter fence. Alternative 4 received a score of 32. Alternative 5 (Driven Piles) will not discharge fill into Jensen’s Lake, and therefore have no water resource permitting or mitigation requirements. A Section 4(f) evaluation or de minimis determination for physical “use” of the Greenbelt and Jensen’s Lake will be required. The cost of construction is $754,529, the highest of the Action Alternative costs. Changes to snow removal procedures may be required around the handrail and perimeter fence. Alternative 5 received a score of 33. Based on the combined evaluation criteria, examining compliance with FAA design standards and recommendations, impacts to environmental resources, cost, and feasibility, Alternative 2 with the retaining wall design is the preferred alternative. Alternative 2 removes incompatible land uses from the ROFA and ROFZ and places the land area within the ROFA and ROFZ under Airport control, per FAA ARC B-I Small design standards. Though higher in cost, Alternative 2 has fewer environmental impacts to Jensen’s Lake than Alternative 3 (earthen embankment). Temporary and permanent impacts to Section 4(f) resources associated with Alternative 2 for physical “use” of the Greenbelt and Jensen’s Lake are anticipated to be de minimis in nature. While a Section 404 permit will be required, the project will be permitted under a USACE Nationwide Permit and there will be no associated mitigation requirements. Overall, Alternative 2 meets the purpose and need of the project, limits environmental impacts compared to other alternatives, and is feasible for the Airport to implement from a cost and maintenance perspective. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 2: Alternatives Analysis (Including Alternative 1, No Action). Criteria Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Retaining Wall (Proposed Action) Alternative 3 – Earthen Embankment Alternative 4 – Column Footings Alternative 5 – Driven H-Piles FAA Design Standards and Recommendations RPZ Maintains RPZ standards 4 Maintains RPZ standards 4 Maintains RPZ standards 4 Maintains RPZ standards 4 Maintains RPZ standards 4 ROFA/ROFZ Does not achieve FAA standards 0 Meets ROFA standards 5 Meets ROFA standards 5 Meets ROFA standards 5 Meets ROFA standards 5 Runway Length Displaces Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet (TODA maintained at 4,311 feet) 4 Displaces Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet (TODA maintained at 4,311 feet) 4 Displaces Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet (TODA maintained at 4,311 feet) 4 Displaces Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet (TODA maintained at 4,311 feet) 4 Displaces Runway 1 threshold by 195 feet (TODA maintained at 4,311 feet)) 4 Environmental Considerations Waters Resources No impacts 5 1.7 CY of fill 30 SF of impact 4 696 CY of fill 10,854 SF of impact 2 0.7 CY of fill 19 SF of impact 4 No fill related impacts 5 Permanent Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources Continued pedestrian safety risk associated with Greenbelt segment in in ROFA/ROFZ 0 Minor shift of Greenbelt towards/into Jensen’s Lake 3 Minor shift of Greenbelt towards/into Jensen’s Lake 3 Minor shift of Greenbelt towards/into Jensen’s Lake 3 Minor shift of Greenbelt towards/into Jensen’s Lake 3 Temporary Construction Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources No temporary impacts 5 Temporary closure of the subject Greenbelt Segment. 3 Temporary closure of the subject Greenbelt Segment. 3 Temporary closure of the subject Greenbelt Segment. 3 Temporary closure of the subject Greenbelt Segment. 3 Economic Considerations Permitting/ Mitigation Requirements No permitting or mitigation requirements. 5 USACE Nationwide Permit. No mitigation requirements. 4 USACE Nationwide Permit and permittee- responsible mitigation for 0.25 acres 2 USACE Nationwide Permit. No mitigation requirements. 4 No permitting or mitigation requirements. 5 Maintenance Requirements Existing maintenance activities continued. No snow plowing concerns. 4 Potential snow plowing issues due to proximity of perimeter fence and handrail. 3 Existing maintenance activities continued. No snow plowing concerns. 4 Potential snow plowing issues due to proximity of fence and handrail. De-icing due to elevated deck. 2 Potential now plowing issues due to proximity of fence and handrail. De- icing due to elevated deck. 2 Preliminary Estimated Total Project Cost Potential future loss of FAA funding 3 $512,540 4 $295,412 5 $741,521 3 $754,529 2 Total Score 30 34 32 32 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report CONCLUSION This Alternatives Analysis Report evaluated non-standard conditions related to the southern end of Runway 1; specifically, the location of the perimeter fence and the Greenbelt within the ROFA and the ROFZ. Seven alternatives were evaluated to determine the preferred method to remove the perimeter fence and the Greenbelt from the ROFA and the ROFZ. The Proposed Action was determined to be the retaining wall design (Alternative The retaining wall design was rated the highest, as it meets the purpose and need of the project, limits environmental impacts compared to other alternatives, and is feasible for the Airport to implement from a cost and maintenance perspective. As stated previously, the Greenbelt and Jensen’s Lake are recreational resources that are protected under Section 4(f). As a result, FAA may approve a project requiring the “use” of land of these resources only if it is a “de minimis” use or there is no feasible and prudent alternative, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm. FAA’s preliminary conclusion is that the construction of the Proposed Action, which would involve approximately 1.7 cubic yards of fill into 30 square feet of Jensen’s Lake, and relocation of approximately 145 linear feet of the Greenbelt pathway would constitute “de minimis” impact on these Section 4(f) resources. FAA makes this preliminary conclusion based on the fact that the Proposed Action will not adversely affect the features, attributes, or activities qualifying the properties for protection under Section 4(f). Construction of the Proposed Action would require a temporary occupancy of the Greenbelt and Jensen’s Lake. FAA’s preliminary conclusion is that the temporary occupancy would not constitute a “use” of these Section 4(f) properties because: The duration is expected to last 4 to 8 weeks and there will be no change in ownership of the land; The scope of the work is minor in the context of the entire Greenbelt pathway and Jensen’s Lake. Both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the Section 4(f) properties are minimal; There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the protected activities of the overall property; and The land being used will be fully restored, i.e., the property will be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project. Additionally, prior to making a final Section 4(f) de minimis impact determination, FAA will undertake appropriate public involvement and agency coordination. The FAA will provide an opportunity for public review and comment. After considering any public comments and if the officials with jurisdiction (the City of Blackfoot) concur in writing that the project would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that make the property eligible for Section 4(f) protection, the FAA will finalize a de minimis impact determination. ---PAGE BREAK--- U02 Runway 1-19 South End Improvements Alternatives Analysis Report Pending a finalized de minimis Section 4(f) determination, the FAA has preliminarily determined that the Proposed Action will not result in significant impacts on the environment and that a Categorical Exclusion is the appropriate form of NEPA documentation for the project. The Proposed Action is anticipated to be categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F paragraph 5-6.4 Facility Siting, Construction, and Maintenance. Specifically under, 5-6.4 f. “Federal financial assistance, licensing, Airport Layout Plan (ALP) approval, or FAA construction or limited expansion of accessory on- site structures, including storage buildings, garages, hangars, t-hangars, small parking areas, signs, fences, and other essentially similar minor development items.” and 5-6.4 k. “Placing earthen fill into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site, provided the land is not delineated as a wetland; or minor dredging or filling of wetlands or navigable waters for any categorically excluded action, provided the fill is of material compatible with the natural features of the site, and the dredging and filling qualifies for an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers nationwide or a regional general permit.” ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A: Agency Coordination ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) Coordination ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Tamsen Binggeli From: Heath Hancock <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:02 AM To: Tamsen Binggeli Cc: Nathan Cuvala; Vince Barthels Subject: RE: McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot - Potential IDL Easement Morning Tamsen, I have reviewed your map of the planned realignment and agree with the determination. There is no need for IDL approval of any work related to this project. I really appreciate your work to reach out to us to make sure that every approval was obtained. Cheers, Heath From: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 10:41 AM To: Heath Hancock <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot - Potential IDL Easement CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and attachments BEFORE you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with any concerns. Good morning Heath, I wanted to provide you with an update on the McCarley Field Airport IDL easement. Attached is a KMZ file that our survey team created from the quitclaim deed (12698) (second attachment). We overlayed this boundary with the alternatives for the Greenbelt relocation, and all the alternatives would fall within the existing IDL easement. Based on this information, it appears that we will not need to obtain and IDL Submerged Land Easement for this project. Please let me know if you agree with this determination. Thank you for your ongoing support. Best regards, ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Tamsen Binggeli, AICP Environmental Project Manager O: [PHONE REDACTED] I M: [PHONE REDACTED] 2471 S. Titanium Place, Meridian, Idaho, 83642 [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.ardurra.com From: Heath Hancock <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 1:38 PM To: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot - Potential IDL Easement Hey Tamsen, I have attached quitclaim deed 12698. If I’m looking at the map and survey correctly, I believe we did release and quitclaim parcel along with 32.70 acres to the city of Blackfoot in 1994. If this lines up with what you are seeing, there wouldn’t be any additional authorization needed from IDL for the project. Let me know if you have any questions, Heath From: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 3:18 PM To: Heath Hancock <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot - Potential IDL Easement CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and attachments BEFORE you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with any concerns. Good afternoon Heath, I am reaching out again regarding the IDL submerged land easement for the McCarley Field Airport Environmental Assessment. As a reminder, the project is to relocate the Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt to outside the safety zones of the runway, which will shift greenbelt into Jensen’s Lake. In April, you provided me the details on preparing the IDL Submerged Land Easement Application (see email thread below). Recently, we came across an old record of survey for the Airport that shows a portion of the existing fence/property line being purchased from the State of Idaho (see PDF attached). We were wondering if an IDL easement may already exist for the Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt in this location. Is this something you could look into for us? Or there another person at IDL that we should reach out to? Thank you for your ongoing assistance with this project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Best regards, Tamsen Binggeli, AICP Environmental Project Manager O: [PHONE REDACTED] I M: [PHONE REDACTED] 2471 S. Titanium Place, Meridian, Idaho, 83642 [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.ardurra.com From: Heath Hancock <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 2:47 PM To: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot - Potential IDL Easement Hello Tamsen, It was good speaking with you. Your summary of our conversation is accurate. We will endeavor to process the easement application as quickly as possible once a complete application is received. I think the eight week timeline is doable. If you have any further questions, or need guidance prior to application submittal, please reach out. Regards, Heath Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 2:39:23 PM To: Heath Hancock <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot - Potential IDL Easement Hello Heath, Thank you for speaking with me about the IDL Submerged Land Easement Application for the McCarley Field Airport EA. To summarize: • The application needs an accurate a written description of the centerline or metes and bounds survey of the submerged land easement, and total acreage. Ideally, this would be submitted in Word format. • The exhibit should indicate where the Ordinary High Water Mark is located and the acreage of the site. • The application fee is $300; however, this may increase in 2023. • Once a complete easement application is received, it will take around 8 weeks to process. The application will be reviewed by the Deputy Attorney General and submitted to the Boise office for signatures and recordation. I will follow up with you when I have a better idea on our schedule. We may wait until after the Environmental Assessment is approved, around February 2023. Construction is planned to occur approximately April through October 2023. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Pease let me know if I am missing anything and thank you for your assistance with this project. Best regards, TAMSEN N. BINGGELI, AICP I Environmental Project Manager 2471 S. Titanium Place I Meridian, Idaho 83642 O [PHONE REDACTED] I C [PHONE REDACTED] www.to-engineers.com From: Heath Hancock <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 10:26 AM To: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot - Potential IDL Easement Morning Tamsen, I left a voice mail on your cell phone as well. Attached to this email, please find a Submerged Land Easement Application. Let’s talk next week about what IDL’s needs will be with respect to legal descriptions, drawings and maps. Once we get all the required documentation, I’ll assign it to one of my specialists for processing. Have a good weekend, Heath R. Heath Hancock Resource Supervisor – Lands and Waterways Idaho Department of Lands Eastern Area 3563 Ririe Hwy Idaho Falls, ID 83401 Office: (208) 525-7167 Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] From: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2022 9:27 AM To: Heath Hancock <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot - Potential IDL Easement ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Hello Heath, I appreciate the prompt response and glad to hear it is a relatively straightforward process. I look forward to speaking with you next week! Best regards, TAMSEN N. BINGGELI, AICP I Environmental Project Manager 2471 S. Titanium Place I Meridian, Idaho 83642 O [PHONE REDACTED] I C [PHONE REDACTED] www.to-engineers.com From: Heath Hancock <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 9:33 PM To: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot - Potential IDL Easement Hello Tamsen, A submerged land easement is a relatively straight forward process. We have an easement application that would need to be submitted and a $300 application fee. The easement would cover anything below the ordinary high water mark or over the state owned bed of the waterbody. We would need a metes and bounds description. I'm in coeur d'Alene until Friday, but will give you a call when I get back. Regards, Heath Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:36:21 PM To: Heath Hancock <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot - Potential IDL Easement Hello Heath, This is a follow-up to the phone message I left earlier. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 As mentioned, the City of Blackfoot is proposing to move the Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt outside of the safety zones of the McCarley Field Airport Runway. A cantilever pathway over Jensen’s Lake (owned by the IDL) is proposed. Attached are two figures that depict what this might look like. We are assisting the City of Blackfoot in preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project. The lead agency is the FAA and they gave us permission to reach out to IDL regarding a potential easement. Do you know the process for obtaining an IDL easement or know someone that I should contact? I appreciate your assistance with this project. Best regards, TAMSEN N. BINGGELI, AICP I Environmental Project Manager 2471 S. Titanium Place I Meridian, Idaho 83642 O [PHONE REDACTED] I C [PHONE REDACTED] www.to-engineers.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Coordination ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Tamsen Binggeli From: Golart, Aaron <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 1:14 PM To: Tamsen Binggeli Cc: Bruner, Heidy S (FAA); Nathan Cuvala; Vince Barthels; Stosich, Scott Subject: RE: McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project Attachments: McCarley Field Airport Greenbelt Relocation Project.pdf Tamsen, Thanks for remining me about this. No permit would be required from IDWR to do work in Jensen’s Lake. Aaron Golart Water Compliance Bureau From: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 10:13 AM To: Golart, Aaron <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Bruner, Heidy S (FAA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and attachments BEFORE you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with any concerns. Good morning Aaron, Thank you for speaking with me last week regarding the McCarley Field Airport greenbelt relocation project in Blackfoot, Idaho. I was wondering if you were able to determine whether an IDWR Stream Channel Alteration permit would be required for impacts to Jensen’s Lake (remnant of Snake River). I’ve reattached the project description, vicinity map, and project exhibit. As you know, we are in the planning stages of this project and are trying to get a list of permitting requirements. Thanks again for your assistance. Best regards, Tamsen Binggeli, AICP Environmental Project Manager M: (208) 830-5257 I O: (208) 323-2288 2471 S Titanium Pl, Meridian, Idaho, 83642 [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.ardurra.com ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 From: Tamsen Binggeli Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 2:22 PM To: Golart, Aaron <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Bruner, Heidy S (FAA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project Good afternoon Aaron, This is a follow-up email regarding the McCarley Field Airport greenbelt relocation project. As mentioned previously, the Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt encroaches upon the safety areas of the primary runway at the McCarley Field Airport in Blackfoot, Idaho. To meet FAA safety standards, the greenbelt needs to be relocated towards Jensen’s Lake through construction of a retaining wall or pier design. Jensen’s Lake is a former oxbow of the Snake River and is under State jurisdiction. Please see attached the project description, vicinity map, project exhibit, and profile exhibits for the column and retaining wall options. We have already spoken with the USACE regarding Section 404 permitting, the EPA regarding the Sole Source Aquifer (determined no significant impact), and IDL (an easement is already in place). Let me know if you would like me to forward prior agency correspondence. At this point in the project, we would appreciate your preliminary feedback on what permits/approvals would be required and any concerns from IDWR’s perspective. Let me know if I can provide any additional information and thank you for your attention to this project. Best regards, Tamsen Binggeli, AICP Environmental Project Manager M: (208) 830-5257 I O: (208) 323-2288 2471 S Titanium Pl, Meridian, Idaho, 83642 [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.ardurra.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Sole Source Aquifer Concurrence and Checklist ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Tamsen Binggeli From: Robinson, James <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 5:46 PM To: Tamsen Binggeli Cc: Bruner, Heidy S (FAA); [EMAIL REDACTED]; Vince Barthels; Nathan Cuvala; Carlton Strough Subject: RE: McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot, Idaho, Sole Source Aquifer Checklists Hi Tamsen, Thank you for submitting your project information to the US EPA Region 10 Sole Source Aquifer Program. The Sole Source Aquifer Program reviews projects that are both proposed in a federally-designated Sole Source Aquifer review area and receive federal financial assistance. We review information submitted by project proponents to determine if the action has a potential to endanger human health by contaminating the aquifer. We have completed our review of the Greenbelt and Fence Relocation and Taxiway Rehab and Hanger Construction projects at McCarley Field Airport in Blackfoot, ID. We find that the proposed projects, as described in your submissions, will not have a significant adverse impacts on the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer. Therefore, federal funding for the projects may proceed. Please note that the finding of no significant adverse impacts is conditioned on the assumption that the best management practices described in your submissions will be implemented to protect the aquifer from contamination. If soil or groundwater contamination is discovered during the construction activities associated with the projects, it should be remediated in accordance with IDEQ guidance and requirements. This correspondence only addresses requirements of the EPA Sole Source Aquifer Program. You are responsible for complying with any other federal environmental requirements. James Robinson, PE, PG Underground Injection Control and Sole Source Aquifer Programs U.S. EPA Region 10 Alaska Operations Office Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] From: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 8:03 AM To: Robinson, James <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Bruner, Heidy S (FAA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Vince Barthels ; Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Carlton Strough <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot, Idaho, Sole Source Aquifer Checklists Good morning James Robinson, On behalf of the City of Blackfoot, please find attached two EPA Sole Source Aquifer checklists for the McCarley Field Airport. The Airport is located within the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer boundary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 The first checklist is related to the relocation of the Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt and perimeter fence outside of Airport runway safety areas. The second checklist is for Taxiway A rehabilitation and hangar construction (planned north of the Main Apron). These projects require different levels of NEPA documentation, hence the separate checklists. Based on our review, these projects will have no impact on the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer. Thank you for the review and please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Tamsen Binggeli, AICP Environmental Project Manager M: (208) 830-5257 I O: (208) 323-2288 2471 S Titanium Pl, Meridian, Idaho, 83642 [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.ardurra.com ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Page 1 of 3 US EPA Sole Source Aquifer Program – Project Review Checklist Please provide answers to the following questions regarding the proposed project. If the potential risk to the aquifer cannot be adequately determined after reviewing this information, the EPA may contact the project proponent to request additional information. For more information on the EPA Sole Source Aquifer Program, visit: www.epa.gov/dwssa. 1. Location of Project and name of Sole Source Aquifer. The McCarley Field Airport (Airport) is located in Bingham County, approximately 2 miles north of downtown Blackfoot, Idaho (see Figure 1 Vicinity Map). According to the Airport Data and Information Portal (ADIP), the Airport’s elevation is 4,491.6 feet. At its nearest point, the Airport is located approximately 150 feet east of Jensen’s Lake and 1,200 feet east of the Snake River. The Airport is located within the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer boundary, and Jensen’s Lake is identified as an Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer recharge location. 2. Project description and federal funding source Federal Highway Administration, Housing and Urban Development, etc.) The proposed project involves construction of a new segment of the Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt (Greenbelt) over Jensen’s Lake in order to relocate the Greenbelt and Airport perimeter fence outside of the Runway 1 Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) and Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ). Please refer to Figure 2 Proposed Action Exhibit attached. The following project components and associated tasks make up the Proposed Action: 1. Relocate Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt. i. Demolish approximately 320.0 feet of the existing Greenbelt within ROFA and ROFZ. ii. Construct columns or construct a retaining wall to support the relocated Greenbelt. iii. Construct approximately 321.6 feet of new Greenbelt over Jensen’s Lake with guardrail on the lake side of the pathway. iv. Regrade and reseed former Greenbelt location. 2. Relocate Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt lights. i. Remove 10 pathway lights along existing Greenbelt. ii. Install 10 pathway lights along the new section of Greenbelt on the Airport side of the pathway. 3. Relocate Airport Perimeter Fence i. Remove approximately 320 feet of the existing 7-foot-high chain link perimeter fence within ROFA and ROFZ. ii. Install approximately 320 feet of new 7-foot-high chain-link perimeter fence along new path location. iii. Regrade and reseed former perimeter fence location. Please note that the length/dimensions of the Greenbelt and fence relocation noted above are based on preliminary engineering designs, and may vary following final design. The project is being funded, in part, through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Page 2 of 3 3. Is there any increase of impervious surface? If so, what is the area? Approximately 3,762 square feet (SF) of the exiting Greenbelt will be removed and replaced by 4,239 SF of new Greenbelt, resulting in an increase of 477 SF of impervious surfaces. 4. Describe how storm water is currently treated on the site? On Airport property, Stormwater is managed through a series of grassy swales and drywells adjacent to Runway 1-19, Taxiway A, Main Apron, and hangar areas. Stormwater is routed towards the swales and drywells where it is detained and infiltrated into the ground. On the Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt (within the project area), stormwater sheet flows west towards Jensen’s Lake into the adjacent gravel area along the edge of the Greenbelt. 5. How will storm water be treated on this site during construction and after the project is complete? Construction to relocate a segment of the Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt will occur outside of the irrigation season when water levels within Jensen’s Lake are drawn down and the project area is dry. While dewatering activities are not anticipated, the contractor will employ a temporary cofferdam, sump pump, or other de-watering methods during construction if necessary following standard de-watering BMPs. Stormwater BMPs that include spill prevention, control, and countermeasures to protect Jensen’s Lake will be implemented by the contractor prior to and during construction. BMPs may include but are not limited to the installation of fiber wattles, silt fence or other practicable sediment control measures; clearly marking staging and construction boundaries; locating washout areas, fueling areas, excavated material stockpiles, and hazardous materials storage away from aquatic resources; among others. Following construction, stormwater will sheet flow towards the Airport-side of the Greenbelt into adjacent gravel and sodded areas. On Airport property, stormwater will be accommodated through existing infrastructure that include grassy swales and dry wells. The Airport manages stormwater in accordance with their Stormwater Management Plan. 6. Are there any underground storage tanks present or to be installed? Include details of such tanks. According to the Idaho Terradex1, Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) report obtained on May 23, 2022, and a records request obtained from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) on June 5, 2022, there are two active underground storage tanks (USTs) located on Airport property:  12,000-gallon tank with aviation fuel  10,000-gallon tank holding jet fuel. These USTs are approximately 0.25 miles east of the project area, and were last inspected and cleared on 3/31/2021 by the IDEQ. There are no USTs present within the project area, and none planned for installation. 7. Will there be any liquid or solid waste generated? If so, how will it be disposed of? The project will generate solid waste during demolition and construction activities. The contractor will manage solid waste on-site and dispose of solid waste at the local landfill and/or disposal facility that accepts construction and demolition waste, as needed. 1 Idaho Terradex. IDEQ Waste Management and Remediation Facility Mapper. Accessed April 12, 2023, at ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Page 3 of 3 8. What is the depth of excavation? Depending on the method of construction, the Greenbelt relocation may excavate up to 6 feet deep into previously disturbed ground. 9. Are there any wells in the area that may provide direct routes for contaminates to access the aquifer and how close are they to the project? According to the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) find a well map,2 there are two wells located on the Airport property. The closest well is located along Taxiway C in the box hangar area, approximately 1,000 feet east of the project area; this well showed the static water level at 40 feet below surface. The other well is approx. 3,000 feet northeast of the project area with a static water level at 30 feet below the surface. Both wells are outside of the project construction footprint and will not be impacted by the proposed project. 10. Are there any hazardous waste sites in the project area.... especially if the waste site has an underground plume with monitoring wells that may be disturbed? Include details. Information from Idaho Terradex3, EDR, and IDEQ records request (noted in identified two hazardous waste sites on Airport property, approximately 0.25 miles east of the project area. These sites are related to six USTs containing aircraft fuel that have been decommissioned. For each UST, a site assessment has been performed, contaminated soils excavated, and groundwater monitoring practices conducted. IDEQ determined the USTs suitable for closure without additional remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. 11. Are there any deep pilings that may provide access to the aquifer? There are no deep pilings that may provide access to the aquifer. 12. Are Best Management Practices planned to address any possible risks or concerns? During construction, the contractor will implement stormwater and erosion control BMPs such as installing sediment control measures fiber wattles), marking staging and construction boundaries, and establishing washout areas, fueling areas, excavated material stockpiles, and hazardous materials storage away from water resources. Through implementation of BMPs during construction, impacts to water resources, including groundwater, will be avoided and minimized. 13. Is there any other information that could be helpful in determining if this project may have an effect on the aquifer? The Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt is being relocated up to 10 feet west of its existing location within the project area (shown in Figure Approximately 0.006 acres (270 SF) and up to 6.5 cubic yards of fill is estimated to be constructed below the Ordinary High Water Mark of Jensen’s Lake to accommodate the relocated Greenbelt segment. Construction will occur during the non-irrigation season when water levels within Jensen’s Lake are drawn down and the project area is dry. Stormwater BMPs, Sediment and Erosion BMPs, and Dewatering activities (if needed) will be employed to avoid and minimize impacts to Jensen’s Lake during construction. Following construction, the relocated Greenbelt is not anticipated to have any impact on Jensen’s Lake or the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer. 14. Does this Project include any improvements that may be beneficial to the aquifer, such as improvements to the wastewater treatment plan? The proposed project will not deteriorate nor enhance the aquifer. 2 Idaho Department of Water Resources, Find A Well Map. Accessed April 12, 2023, at 3 Idaho Terradex. IDEQ Waste Management and Remediation Division Facility Mapper. Accessed April 12, 2023, at ---PAGE BREAK--- SNAKE RIVER CITY OF BLACKFOOT INTERSTATE 15 Project Location 1-1 Blackfoot IDAHO MCCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT BOUNDARY FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP McCarley Field Airport, Blackfoot, Idaho BLACKFOOT GOLF COURSE AIRPORT PARK JENSEN'S LAKE JENSEN'S PARK GREATER BLACKFOOT AREA GREENBELT ---PAGE BREAK--- 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 3+20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+21 BP: 10+00.00 PC: 10+05.86 PRC: 10+30.80 PT: 10+58.50 PI: 12+13.80 PI: 12+58.87 PI: 13+12.18 EP: 13+21.15 BP: 0+00.00 EP: 3+19.52 1 4 5 2 7 7 8 8 9 9 ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-RPZ U-RPZ U-RPZ U-RPZ U-RPZ U-RPZ U-RPZ U-RPZ U-RPZ U-RPZ U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA 3 4 22"x34" PROJECT C ARDURRA GROUP, INC. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ARDURRA. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ARDURRA IS STRIC DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: I:\170313\3_ACADDWG\OBJECTS\170313-PR-ACTION EXHIBIT.DWG, 1/4/2023 DATE DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION OFZ U-ROFZ LEGEND RPZ RSA ROFA OFZ RPZ X X X X X X OFA U-RPZ U-ROFA OHWM EXISTING PATHWAY WITHIN THE ROFA/ROFZ AFTER DISPLACEMENT EXISTING PAVEMENT PROPOSED PAVEMENT EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED FENCE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) GRADING LIMITS RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ) RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) RUNWAY OBJECT FREE ZONE (ROFZ) PROPOSED RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (U-RPZ) PROPOSED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (U-ROFA) PROPOSED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE ZONE (U-ROFZ) EXISTING PATHWAY LIGHT PROPOSED PATHWAY LIGHT KEYNOTES: EXISTING PATHWAY WITHIN ROFA/ROFZ AFTER 195' THRESHOLD DISPLACEMENT TO BE REMOVED 497 S.F. REMOVE 3762 S.F. OF EXISTING PATHWAY. REMOVE AND RETAIN 10 EXISTING PATHWAY LIGHTS. REMOVE 320 L.F. OF EXISTING FENCE AND DISPOSE OFFSITE. REINSTALL 10 EXISTING PATHWAY LIGHTS. INSTALL 320 L.F. OF NEW FENCE TO MATCH EXISTING. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING PATHWAY. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING PATHWAY LIGHTS. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING FENCE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT BLACKFOOT, IDAHO GREATER BLACKFOOT AREA GREENBELT RELOCATION 01 OF 01 GREENBELT RELOCATION 0 10 20 40 60 SCALE: 1" = 20' JENSEN'S LAKE MCCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT RUNWAY 1 END FIGURE 2 - PROPOSED ACTION EXHIBIT ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Coordination ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Tamsen Binggeli From: Joyner, James M CIV USARMY CENWW (USA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 3:15 PM To: Shane Slate; Tamsen Binggeli Cc: Jones, Brendan V CIV USARMY CENWW (USA) Subject: RE: McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project Shane and Tamsen, After some thought, and our discussion, I would concur that the regional condition doesn’t apply in this instance, given the purpose of the proposed alteration. The intent of the regional condition prohibiting the discharge of fill in waters to meet setback requirements is to prevent applicants from wasting material in waters simply to remove them so that a structure/feature meets a setback requirement. This action is different for two reason: 1) the purpose isn’t primarily to meet a setback requirement, rather its to improve safety for those using the recreational path and those using the airport, 2) the fill would provide for a relocated recreational path not simply fill to rid the area of a water or wetland that is within a setback. Regards, James M. Joyner Chief, Upper Snake and Idaho Panhandle Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District Idaho Falls Regulatory Office 900 N Skyline Drive, Suite A Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 (208) 522-1645 [EMAIL REDACTED] From: Shane Slate <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 10:11 AM To: Joyner, James M CIV USARMY CENWW (USA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Jones, Brendan V CIV USARMY CENWW (USA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project Hi James, Thanks for taking the time today to talk with us and provide your insight on the proposed McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project as it relates to the Walla Walla District Regional Conditions for the Nationwide Permits. Per our discussion, here is a more detailed purpose statement related to the project to provide clarity. The purpose of the McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project is to ensure safety by modifying/relocating a section of the existing recreational greenbelt pathway which currently intersects the Airport safety area, known as the Runway Object Free Area (ROFA), creating unsafe conditions. The relocation project will ensure both the safety of the recreating public utilizing the greenbelt pathway and the safety of operations at the Airport. To accomplish this purpose, the greenbelt pathway would be realigned to be outside of the ROFA safety area. The relocation may require the discharge of fill material into WoTUS to achieve its purpose due to the pathway abutting Jensen’s Lake. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Due to the purpose of the project being based on safety and continued recreational use of the existing greenbelt pathway structure, we don’t believe that the regional condition in question applies to this project. If you could provide your feedback on this subject when you have time it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss this one. Feel free to contact me or Tamsen if you need any additional information on our end, Shane Shane Slate, PWS Environmental Project Manager O: [PHONE REDACTED] I M: [PHONE REDACTED] 7950 N. Meadowlark Way, Ste A, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815 [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.ardurra.com From: Shane Slate Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:20 PM To: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Cc: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project Hi James and Brendan, Tamsen and I are wondering if you both have time next week for an informal MS Teams meeting between the four of us to discuss this project as it relates to the NWP regional condition regarding set back requirements. After sharing the information provided below with the FAA, they requested we have this informal chat to ensure we are all on the same page regarding the project and its purpose, which they see as the modification to an existing recreational resource/facility to ensure safety (both safety of the airport operations and safety of the recreating public) rather than to meet regulatory setback requirements. Due to the precedence this could set for future airport/FAA related projects near WoTUS in Idaho, they felt it best that we keep the discussion as informal (consultant to USACE) as possible to get clarification prior to any meetings or correspondence that may be construed as conferring at the agency-to-agency level. If you have any days/times next week that work just let me know and we can set something up. Also, feel free to give me a call on my cell if you would like to discuss at all prior to setting up a meeting with the four of us. Thank you, Shane Shane Slate, PWS Environmental Project Manager O: [PHONE REDACTED] I M: [PHONE REDACTED] 7950 N. Meadowlark Way, Ste A, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815 [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.ardurra.com ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 From: Jones, Brendan V CIV USARMY CENWW (USA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 8:45 AM To: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Bruner, Heidy S (FAA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project All, A design using driven piles or screwed (helical piers) as the only material below the ordinary high water mark would not require a Section 404 permit. This is assuming that the piles are not placed so close together that the would imped the flow or movement of water (meaning that you cannot make a wall out of driven piles). Other methods of construction that involve the discharge of concrete, brick, and or earthen fills would count as a discharge and would need permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In this particular case because the project is being implemented to satisfy setback requirements the discharge is unable to be authorized as a Nationwide Permit and would have to obtain authorization through the Individual or Standard process. Best, Brendan Jones Environmental Resource Specialist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District Idaho Falls Regulatory Office 900 N Skyline Drive, Suite A Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 (208) 522-1645 [EMAIL REDACTED] From: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 7:46 AM To: Jones, Brendan V CIV USARMY CENWW (USA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Bruner, Heidy S (FAA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project Good morning Brendan, Thank you for researching the permitting requirements for the McCarley Field Airport Greenbelt Relocation Project. This is incredibly helpful since we going through an alternatives analysis for the Greenbelt design. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Can you confirm the following for our records: • A boardwalk design in which piles are driven into the lakebed driven wood piles or helical piers) would not require a Section 404 permit. • Any other path design earthen embankment, retaining wall, columns with concrete footings) involving fill into Jensen’s Lake would require a Section 404 permit, which would be processed under a Standard or Individual Permit. Thanks again for your help with this. Tamsen Binggeli, AICP Environmental Project Manager M: (208) 830-5257 I O: (208) 323-2288 2471 S Titanium Pl, Meridian, Idaho, 83642 [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.ardurra.com From: Jones, Brendan V CIV USARMY CENWW (USA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 3:52 PM To: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Bruner, Heidy S (FAA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project Hello All, Speaking to the question that you had posed in your previous email it appears that your proposed project is not eligible to be processed under NWP as the project purpose involves moving the path to meet a set back requirement. I have attached NWP 39 to this email to provide the language prohibiting authorization under NWPs for projects being implemented to meet setback requirements. On the third page of our regional conditions (page 5 of the entire PDF) section G second bullet it is stated "Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, to meet set back requirements are not authorized under NWP." As I understand the purpose of the project is to have the walking path be a certain distance from the runway according to FAA guidelines for the safety of humans on the ground. We believe that this fits the definition of a setback and is unable to be processed under NWP. The project would need to be processed as a Standard or Individual Permit. Best, Brendan Jones Environmental Resource Specialist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Walla Walla District Idaho Falls Regulatory Office 900 N Skyline Drive, Suite A Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 (208) 522-1645 [EMAIL REDACTED] From: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 11:33 AM To: Jones, Brendan V CIV USARMY CENWW (USA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Bruner, Heidy S (FAA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project Hello Brendan, Thank you for speaking with me earlier today and for the information below. As discussed, it would be good to know the type of permit that would be required if the retaining wall option was pursued. I know this is something you are looking into and appreciate your assistance with that. Please reach out if you need any additional information. Best regards, Tamsen Binggeli, AICP Environmental Project Manager M: (208) 830-5257 I O: (208) 323-2288 2471 S Titanium Pl, Meridian, Idaho, 83642 [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.ardurra.com From: Jones, Brendan V CIV USARMY CENWW (USA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:36 AM To: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Bruner, Heidy S (FAA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project Hello, The activities as described in your attachment appear to have minimal impacts. Additionally, the column beam system appear to have a lesser impact than the retaining wall and backfilling. As you had mentioned in our calls and email driven wood piles/helical piers would have the least impact of all ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 of the options that we have discussed. Thank for the questions, please feel free to continue communicating possible plans/thoughts throughout the planning process. Best, Brendan Jones Environmental Resource Specialist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District Idaho Falls Regulatory Office 900 N Skyline Drive, Suite A Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 (208) 522-1645 [EMAIL REDACTED] From: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 12:15 PM To: Jones, Brendan V CIV USARMY CENWW (USA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Bruner, Heidy S (FAA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Nathan Cuvala <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Vince Barthels <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] McCarley Field Airport, Greenbelt Relocation Project Good afternoon Brendan, Thank you for speaking with me this morning regarding the McCarley Field Airport greenbelt relocation project. Attached is a project description, vicinity map, project exhibit, and profile exhibits for the column and retaining wall options. Based on our conversation, a Section 404 permit would be required for any fill into Jensen’s Lake or adjacent wetlands, such as construction of a retaining wall or column/pier designs involving fill. Certain pier designs in which piles are driven into the lakebed driven wood piles or helical piers) would not require a Section 404 permit. Please provide any corrections, updates, or concerns about this project from the Corps’ perspective. We want to ensure that the project results in no significant impact to Jensen’s Lake. Again, thank you for taking the time to provide preliminary feedback on this project. Best regards, Tamsen Binggeli, AICP Environmental Project Manager M: (208) 830-5257 I O: (208) 323-2288 2471 S Titanium Pl, Meridian, Idaho, 83642 [EMAIL REDACTED] I www.ardurra.com ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) Coordination ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Tamsen Binggeli From: Johnson,Becky <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 12:46 PM To: Tamsen Binggeli Subject: RE: IDFG data request Hi Tamsen, Thank you for providing an introduction to the projects at McCarley Field Airport in Blackfoot. Upon meeting with you and hearing a description of the activities planned for the Airport runway and the adjacent Greenbelt walkway, IDFG does not have substantial concerns about impacts to fish and wildlife populations resulting from the projects’ activities. The following is a summary of what we discussed earlier today: • Rehabilitation of Runway Pavement – IDFG has no records that indicate bald eagles nests are present within or adjacent to the project area. While unlikely, any bald eagles that may be nesting in the vicinity of the project area are likely to be accustomed to noise and disturbance given the amount of noise and activity present already I-15 traffic, Greenbelt users, Jensen Lake motorized boating, golf course, etc.). Please contact IDFG if a nest does happen to be observed and we can assess whether changes should be made at that time. • Relocate Greater Blackfoot Area Greenbelt – Relocating the Greenbelt and Airport perimeter fence outside of the Runway 1 Runway Object Free Area and Runway Obstacle Free Zone is unlikely to have an impact on fisheries populations in Jensen Lake. Thank you for the opportunity to review the project. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions. Becky Becky Johnson Technical Assistance Manager Idaho Department of Fish and Game 1345 Barton Road Pocatello, ID 83204 O: [PHONE REDACTED] M: [PHONE REDACTED] From: Tamsen Binggeli <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 2:39 PM To: Johnson,Becky <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: IDFG data request CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and attachments BEFORE you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with any concerns. ---PAGE BREAK--- Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) Coordination ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B: Preliminary Design Exhibits ---PAGE BREAK--- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA 4470 4475 4480 4466 4467 4468 4469 4471 4472 4473 4474 4476 4477 4478 4479 4481 4482 4483 4483 4483 4484 4484 4470 4475 4480 4466 4467 4468 4469 4471 4472 4473 4474 4476 4477 4478 4479 4481 4482 4483 4484 4484 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION 0 20 10 60 40 LEGEND ROFA OFZ X X X X X X U-ROFA U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT NO ACTION BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 01 OF 15 OHWM 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE- RETAINING WALL-UPDATED.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM November 23 210257 U-ROFZ EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING PAVEMENT WITHIN ROFA/ROFZ EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED FENCE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) RUNWAY OBJECT FREE ZONE (ROFZ) PROPOSED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (U-ROFA) PROPOSED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE ZONE (U-ROFZ) EXISTING PATHWAY LIGHT PROPOSED PATHWAY LIGHT EXISTING PATHWAY INSIDE EXISTING RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA ---PAGE BREAK--- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 10+00.00 10+50.00 11+00.00 11+50.00 12+00.00 12+50.00 13+00.00 13+21.12 I ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+21 BP: 0+00.00 EP: 3+19.52 1 LIMITS OF RETAINING WALL FOOTING 4470 4475 4480 4466 4467 4468 4469 4471 4472 4473 4474 4476 4477 4478 4479 4481 4482 4483 4483 4483 4484 4484 4470 4475 4480 4466 4467 4468 4469 4471 4472 4473 4474 4476 4477 4478 4479 4481 4482 4483 4484 4484 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X BP: 10+00.00 PC: 10+05.86 PRC: 10+30.80 PT: 10+58.50 PI: 12+13.80 PI: 12+58.87 PI: 13+12.18 EP: 13+21.15 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE- RETAINING WALL-UPDATED.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM November 23 210257 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION 0 59 30 178 119 U-ROFZ LEGEND X X X X X X U-ROFA U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT GREENBELT IMPACT TO JENSENS LAKE RETAINING WALL ALTERNATIVE BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 01 OF 15 KEYNOTES: RETAINING WALL ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS 30 SF AND REQUIRES 1.7 C.Y. OF FILL BELOW THE OHWM 1 EXISTING PAVEMENT PROPOSED PAVEMENT EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED FENCE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) GRADING LIMITS PROPOSED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (U-ROFA) PROPOSED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE ZONE (U-ROFZ) EXISTING PATHWAY LIGHT PROPOSED PATHWAY LIGHT OHWM ---PAGE BREAK--- 10+00.00 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 PROPOSED PATHWAY 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE WATER LINE EMBANKMENT FILL 10+50.00 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 PROPOSED PATHWAY 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE STRUCTURAL FILL 11+00.00 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 PROPOSED PATHWAY 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE STRUCTURAL FILL 11+50.00 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 PROPOSED PATHWAY 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE STRUCTURAL FILL 12+00.00 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 PROPOSED PATHWAY 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE 12+50.00 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 PROPOSED PATHWAY 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE EMBANKMENT FILL 13+00.00 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 PROPOSED PATHWAY 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE EMBANKMENT FILL 13+21.12 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 PROPOSED PATHWAY 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE EMBANKMENT FILL 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE- RETAINING WALL-UPDATED.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM November 23 210257 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION 0 10 5 30 20 U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT GREENBELT IMPACT TO JENSENS LAKE RETAINING WALL SECTIONS BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 02 OF 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3" ASPHALT PATH BACKFILL 4.00' 1.50' 4.00' RETAINING WALL SUPPORT 6" BASE COURSE HANDRAIL 2.00' 0.50' 1.50' 1.50' 0.50' 4.00' HEEL FOOTING SHEAR KEY TOE WALL RETAINING WALL ANTICIPATED DIMENSIONS 0.50 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE- RETAINING WALL-UPDATED.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM November 2023 210257 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT GREENBELT IMPACT TO JENSENS LAKE RETAINING WALL ALTERNATIVE DETAILS BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 03 OF 15 NOTES 1. DRAWINGS NOT TO SCALE. 2. CONCRETE DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 3. CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. McCARLEY FIELD GREENBELT ALTERNATIVES RETAINING WALL EXHIBIT ---PAGE BREAK--- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+21 10+00.00 10+50.00 11+00.00 11+50.00 12+00.00 12+50.00 13+00.00 13+21.12 I ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA BP: 10+00.00 PC: 10+05.86 PRC: 10+30.80 PT: 10+58.50 PI: 12+13.80 PI: 12+58.87 PI: 13+12.18 EP: 13+21.15 1 4470 4480 4466 4468 4472 4474 4476 4478 4482 4484 4484 4470 4480 4466 4468 4472 4474 4476 4478 4482 4484 4484 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE REPLICATE SLOPE-UPDATED.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM November 23 210257 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION 0 20 10 60 40 U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT PATHWAY IMPACT TO JENSENS LAKE EMBANKMENT ALTERNATIVE BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 04 OF 15 KEYNOTES: EMBANKMENT ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS 10,854 SF. AND REQUIRES 696.21 C.Y. OF FILL BELOW THE OHWM. 1 U-ROFZ LEGEND ROFA OFZ X X X X X X U-ROFA OHWM EXISTING PAVEMENT PROPOSED PAVEMENT EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED FENCE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) GRADING LIMITS RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) RUNWAY OBJECT FREE ZONE (ROFZ) PROPOSED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (U-ROFA) PROPOSED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE ZONE (U-ROFZ) EXISTING PATHWAY LIGHT PROPOSED PATHWAY LIGHT ---PAGE BREAK--- 10+00.00 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 PROPOSED ASPHALT PATHWAY 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE STRUCTURAL FILL FILL 11+00.00 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE STRUCTURAL FILL PROPOSED ASPHALT PATHWAY 11+50.00 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE STRUCTURAL FILL PROPOSED ASPHALT PATHWAY 10+50.00 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE STRUCTURAL FILL PROPOSED ASPHALT PATHWAY 12+00.00 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE STRUCTURAL FILL PROPOSED ASPHALT PATHWAY 12+50.00 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE STRUCTURAL FILL PROPOSED ASPHALT PATHWAY 13+00.00 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE STRUCTURAL FILL PROPOSED ASPHALT PATHWAY 13+21.12 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 6" 3/4" CRUSHED AGGREGATE CUT WATER LINE STRUCTURAL FILL PROPOSED ASPHALT PATHWAY 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE REPLICATE SLOPE-UPDATED.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM November 23 210257 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT PATHWAY IMPACT TO JENSENS LAKE EMBANKMENT ALTERNATIVE BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 05 OF 15 0 10 5 30 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- BANK RESTORATION PROPOSED ASPHALT PATHWAY PROPOSED FENCE EXISTING GRADE 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE REPLICATE SLOPE-UPDATED.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM October 2023 210257 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION 0 10 5 30 20 U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT PATHWAY IMPACT TO JENSENS LAKE EMBANKMENT ALTERNATIVE BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 06 OF 15 McCARLEY FIELD GREENBELT ALTERNATIVES EMBANKMENT EXHIBIT ---PAGE BREAK--- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 10+11.50 10+51.50 10+91.50 11+31.50 11+71.50 12+11.50 12+51.50 12+91.49 13+11.50 I ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+21 BP: 10+00.00 PC: 10+05.86 PRC: 10+30.80 PT: 10+58.50 PI: 12+13.80 PI: 12+58.87 PI: 13+12.18 EP: 13+21.15 BP: 0+00.00 EP: 3+19.52 4470 4475 4480 4466 4467 4468 4469 4471 4472 4473 4474 4476 4477 4478 4479 4481 4482 4483 4484 4484 4470 4475 4480 4466 4467 4468 4469 4471 4472 4473 4474 4476 4477 4478 4479 4481 4482 4483 4483 4483 4484 4484 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE COLUMNS-UPDATED.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM November 23 210257 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION 0 20 10 60 40 U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT GREENELT IMPACT TO JENSENS LAKE COLUMN ALTERNATIVE BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 07 OF 15 KEYNOTES: COLUMN ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS 19.32 SF AND REQUIRES 0.7 C.Y. OF FILL BELOW THE OHWM. 1 U-ROFZ LEGEND X X X X X X U-ROFA OHWM EXISTING PAVEMENT PROPOSED PAVEMENT EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED FENCE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) GRADING LIMITS PROPOSED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (U-ROFA) PROPOSED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE ZONE (U-ROFZ) EXISTING PATHWAY LIGHT PROPOSED PATHWAY LIGHT ---PAGE BREAK--- 10+11.50 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10+51.50 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10+91.50 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 11+31.50 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 11+71.50 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 12+11.50 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 12+51.50 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 12+91.49 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 13+11.50 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 STEEL DECK COLUMN STEEL DECK COLUMN STEEL DECK COLUMN STEEL DECK COLUMN COLUMN COLUMN COLUMN COLUMN STEEL DECK COLUMN WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE OHWM OHWM OHWM OHWM OHWM OHWM OHWM OHWM OHWM 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE COLUMNS-UPDATED.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM November 23 210257 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION 0 10 5 30 20 U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT GREENBELT IMPACT TO JENSENS LAKE COLUMN ALTERNATIVE SECTIONS BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 08 OF 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8" SLAB ON GRADE W/ #4 @ 12" OC VULCRAFT 2C18 NON- COMPOSITE STEEL DECK 5.00' 1.00' 16" COLUMN, BEAM, AND FOOTING SUPPORT 6" 0.83' 1.00' 2.66' 2.50' 0.83' HANDRAIL COLUMN, BEAM, AND FOOTING SUPPORT 5.00' 5.00' 20.00' 0.83' 1.33' 2.67' 1.00' 5.00' 0.50' 5.00' BEAM COLUMN FOOTING COLUMN, BEAM, AND FOOTING SYSTEM ANTICIPATED DIMENSIONS 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE COLUMNS-UPDATED.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM November 23 210257 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT GREENBELT IMPACT TO JENSENS LAKE COLUMN ALTERNATIVE DETAILS BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 09 OF 15 NOTES 1. DRAWINGS NOT TO SCALE. 2. CONCRETE DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 3. CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. McCARLEY FIELD GREENBELT ALTERNATIVES COLUMN-BEAM-FOOTING EXHIBIT ---PAGE BREAK--- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 10+11.50 10+51.50 10+91.50 11+31.50 11+71.50 12+11.50 12+51.50 12+91.49 13+11.50 IR U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFZ U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA U-ROFA 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+21 BP: 10+00.00 PC: 10+05.86 PRC: 10+30.80 PT: 10+58.50 PI: 12+13.80 PI: 12+58.87 PI: 13+12.18 EP: 13+21.15 BP: 0+00.00 EP: 3+19.52 1 4470 4475 4480 4466 4467 4468 4469 4471 4472 4473 4474 4476 4477 4478 4479 4481 4482 4483 4483 4483 4484 4484 4470 4475 4480 4466 4467 4468 4469 4471 4472 4473 4474 4476 4477 4478 4479 4481 4482 4483 4484 4484 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE H-PILE-20 FEET.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM November 23 210257 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION 0 20 10 60 40 U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT GREENBELT IMPACT TO JENSENS LAKE BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 10 OF 15 KEYNOTES: H-PILE ALTERNATIVE HAS NO IMPACTS AND REQUIRES NO FILL BELOW THE OHWM. 1 H-PILE @ 20' INTERVALS ALTERNATIVE U-ROFZ LEGEND X X X X X X U-ROFA OHWM EXISTING PAVEMENT PROPOSED PAVEMENT EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED FENCE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) GRADING LIMITS PROPOSED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (U-ROFA) PROPOSED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE ZONE (U-ROFZ) EXISTING PATHWAY LIGHT PROPOSED PATHWAY LIGHT A A B B ---PAGE BREAK--- 10+11.50 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10+51.50 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10+91.50 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 11+31.50 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 11+71.50 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 12+11.50 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 12+51.50 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 12+91.49 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 13+11.50 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 4459.0 4460.0 4465.0 4470.0 4475.0 4480.0 4485.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 H-PILE STEEL DECK STEEL DECK H-PILE STEEL DECK H-PILE STEEL DECK H-PILE STEEL DECK H-PILE STEEL DECK H-PILE STEEL DECK H-PILE STEEL DECK H-PILE OHWM OHWM OHWM OHWM OHWM OHWM OHWM OHWM OHWM WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE WATER LINE 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE H-PILE-20 FEET.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM November 23 210257 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION 0 10 5 30 20 U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT PATHWAY IMPACT TO JENSENS LAKE BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 11 OF 15 H-PILE @ 20' INTERVALS ALTERNATIVE DETAILS ---PAGE BREAK--- 0.50' 2.50' 1.00' 1.00' 24.00' 20.00' 24.00' 22"x34" C T-O ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-O ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-O ENGINEERS IS STRI DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED BORDER SIZE PROJECT: DATE: N:\210257\3_ACADDWG\SHEETS\170313-PR-SURFACE H-PILE-20 FEET.DWG, 11/10/2023 1 0 1/2 ATTENTION: IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ON 22x34 SHEET or 1/2" ON 11x17 SHEET, THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE SHEET: SHEET: 2023 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 [PHONE REDACTED] I WWW.ARDURRA.COM November 23 210257 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION U02 McCARLEY FIELD AIRPORT PATHWAY IMPACT TO JENSENS LAKE BLACKFOOT, IDAHO 12 OF 15 H-PILE @ 20' INTERVALS ALTERNATIVE DETAILS H-PILE, BEAM, AND FOOTING SUPPORT 8" SLAB ON GRADE W/ #6 @ 6" OC H-PILE, BEAM, AND FOOTING SUPPORT CONT. WALL FOOTING MCCARLEY FIELD H PILE-BEAM-FOOTING EXHIBIT NOTES 1. DRAWINGS NOT TO SCALE. 2. CONCRETE DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 3. CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. VULCRAFT 2C18 NON- COMPOSITE STEEL DECK k T X X Y Y bf tw k1 tf d HP-Shape Dimensions Shape Area, A Depth, d Web Flange Distance Thickness, tw tw/2 Width, bf Thickness, tf k k1 T Workable Gage in.² in. in. in. in. in. in. in. in. in. HP 12x74 21.8000 12.1000 12 1/8 0.6050 5/8 5/16 12.2000 12 1/4 0.6100 5/8 1 5/16 15/16 9 1/2 5 1/2 A A B B SECTION SECTION VULCRAFT 2C18 NON- COMPOSITE STEEL DECK 8" SLAB ON GRADE W/ #6 @ 6" OC ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C: Preliminary Cost Estimates ---PAGE BREAK--- Project Alternatives Estimate Contingency Estimated Budget Alternative 1 - No Action $0 N/A $0 Alternative 2 - Retaining Wall $427,117 20% $512,540 Alternative 3 - Embankment $246,177 20% $295,412 Alternative 4 - Columns w/ Steel Deck $617,934 20% $741,521 Alternative 5 - Driven Pile w/ Steel Deck $628,774 20% $754,529 Alternative 6 - Shorten Runway by 400 Feet $803,070 20% $963,684 Alterantive 7 - Shift Runway by 400 Feet $5,240,779 20% $6,288,935 RUNWAY 1-19 SOUTH END IMPROVEMENTS- McCARLEY FIELD ---PAGE BREAK--- Pathway Relocation Alternative 2 - Retaining Wall Item Unit Unit Estimated Extended No. Item Description Measure Price Quantity Amount 1. Mobilization L.S. $31,521.50 1 $31,521.50 2. Safety Compliance L.S. $15,760.75 1 $15,760.75 3. Contractor Quality Control L.S. $9,456.45 1 $9,456.45 4. Dust Control L.S. $9,456.45 1 $9,456.45 5. Contractor Surveys L.S. $23,641.13 1 $23,641.13 6. Dewatering L.S. $3,152.15 1 $3,152.15 7. Implementation L.S. $9,456.45 1 $9,456.45 8. Sediment Control L.S. $9,456.45 1 $9,456.45 9. Demolition A) Pathway Asphalt Removal, Dispose of Offsite S.Y. $8.00 420 $3,360.00 B) Chain Link Removal, Dispose of Offsite L.F. $8.00 310 $2,480.00 C) Pathway Lights Removel, Retain for Reuse E.A. $350.00 10 $3,500.00 D) Sawcut L.F. $10.00 30 $300.00 10. Excavation Off-site Disposal C.Y. $30.00 130 $3,900.00 11. Subgrade Prep. w/ Separation Geotextile Type II S.Y. $10.00 430 $4,300.00 12. Structural Fill Import off-site C.Y. $50.00 20 $1,000.00 13. 3/4" Crushed Aggregate for Base (Type I) C.Y. $65.00 80 $5,200.00 14. 3" Class III Plant Mix Pavement TON $200.00 80 $16,000.00 15. Retaining Wall L.F. $375.00 321 $120,375.00 16. Hand Rail Guard L.F. $300.00 150 $45,000.00 17. Intall Chain Link Fence L.F. $80.00 310 $24,800.00 18. Install Pathway Lights including Conduit/Wire/Pull Boxes E.A. $8,500.00 10 $85,000.00 TOTAL $427,116.33 Bid Amount ---PAGE BREAK--- Pathway Relocation Alternative 3 - Embankment Item Unit Unit Estimated Extended No. Item Description Measure Price Quantity Amount 1. Mobilization L.S. $18,168.00 1 $18,168.00 2. Safety Compliance L.S. $9,084.00 1 $9,084.00 3. Contractor Quality Control L.S. $5,450.40 1 $5,450.40 4. Dust Control L.S. $5,450.40 1 $5,450.40 5. Contractor Surveys L.S. $13,626.00 1 $13,626.00 6. Dewatering L.S. $1,816.80 1 $1,816.80 7. Implementation L.S. $5,450.40 1 $5,450.40 8. Sediment Control L.S. $5,450.40 1 $5,450.40 9. Demolition A) Pathway Asphalt Removal, Dispose of Offsite S.Y. $8.00 420 $3,360.00 B) Chain Link Removal, Dispose of Offsite L.F. $8.00 310 $2,480.00 C) Pathway Lights Removal, Retain for Reuse E.A. $350.00 10 $3,500.00 D) Sawcut L.F. $10.00 30 $300.00 10. Excavation Off-site Disposal C.Y. $30.00 118 $3,540.00 11. Subgrade Prep. w/ Separation Geotextile Type II S.Y. $10.00 430 $4,300.00 12. Structural Fill Import off-site C.Y. $40.00 830 $33,200.00 13. 6" of 3/4" Crushed Aggregate for Base (Type I) C.Y. $65.00 80 $5,200.00 14. 3" Class III Plant Mix Pavement TON $200.00 80 $16,000.00 15. Intall Chain Link Fence L.F. $80.00 310 $24,800.00 16. Install Pathway Lights including Conduit/Wire/Pull Boxes E.A. $8,500.00 10 $85,000.00 TOTAL $246,176.40 Bid Amount ---PAGE BREAK--- Pathway Relocation Alternative 5 - Driven Pile w/ Steel Deck Item Unit Unit Estimated Extended No. Item Description Measure Price Quantity Amount 1. Mobilization L.S. $46,404.00 1 $46,404.00 2. Safety Compliance L.S. $23,202.00 1 $23,202.00 3. Contractor Quality Control L.S. $13,921.20 1 $13,921.20 4. Dust Control L.S. $13,921.20 1 $13,921.20 5. Contractor Surveys L.S. $34,803.00 1 $34,803.00 6. Dewatering L.S. $4,640.40 1 $4,640.40 7. Implementation L.S. $13,921.20 1 $13,921.20 8. Sediment Control L.S. $13,921.20 1 $13,921.20 9. Demolition A) Pathway Asphalt Removal, Dispose of Offsite S.Y. $8.00 420 $3,360.00 B) Chain Link Removal, Dispose of Offsite L.F. $8.00 310 $2,480.00 C) Pathway Lights Removel, Retain for Reuse E.A. $350.00 10 $3,500.00 D) Sawcut L.F. $10.00 30 $300.00 10. Excavation Off-site Disposal C.Y. $30.00 130 $3,900.00 11. Subgrade Prep. w/ Separation Geotextile Type II S.Y. $10.00 430 $4,300.00 12. Structural Fill Import off-site C.Y. $50.00 20 $1,000.00 13. 3/4" Crushed Aggregate for Base (Type I) C.Y. $65.00 80 $5,200.00 14. 8" Slab on Grade W/ #4 @ 12" OC S.F. $20.00 3,840 $76,800.00 15. 12.75" OD Pipe Piles EA. $5,000.00 16 $80,000.00 16. Steel Suport Beams L.F. $300.00 300 $90,000.00 17. Vulcraft 2C18 Non-Composite Steel Deck S.F. $10.00 3,840 $38,400.00 18. Hand Rail Guard L.F. $300.00 150 $45,000.00 19. Intall Chain Link Fence L.F. $80.00 310 $24,800.00 20. Install Pathway Lights including Conduit/Wire/Pull Boxes E.A. $8,500.00 10 $85,000.00 TOTAL $628,774.20 Bid Amount ---PAGE BREAK--- Pathway Relocation Alternative 4 - Columns w/ Steel Deck Item Unit Unit Estimated Extended No. Item Description Measure Price Quantity Amount 1. Mobilization L.S. $45,604.00 1 $45,604.00 2. Safety Compliance L.S. $22,802.00 1 $22,802.00 3. Contractor Quality Control L.S. $13,681.20 1 $13,681.20 4. Dust Control L.S. $13,681.20 1 $13,681.20 5. Contractor Surveys L.S. $34,203.00 1 $34,203.00 6. Dewatering L.S. $4,560.40 1 $4,560.40 7. Implementation L.S. $13,681.20 1 $13,681.20 8. Sediment Control L.S. $13,681.20 1 $13,681.20 9. Demolition A) Pathway Asphalt Removal, Dispose of Offsite S.Y. $8.00 420 $3,360.00 B) Chain Link Removal, Dispose of Offsite L.F. $8.00 310 $2,480.00 C) Pathway Lights Removel, Retain for Reuse E.A. $350.00 10 $3,500.00 D) Sawcut L.F. $10.00 30 $300.00 10. Excavation Off-site Disposal C.Y. $30.00 130 $3,900.00 11. Subgrade Prep. w/ Separation Geotextile Type II S.Y. $10.00 430 $4,300.00 12. Structural Fill Import off-site C.Y. $50.00 20 $1,000.00 13. 3/4" Crushed Aggregate for Base (Type I) C.Y. $65.00 80 $5,200.00 14. 8" Slab on Grade W/ #4 @ 12" OC S.F. $20.00 3,840 $76,800.00 15. Concrete for Columns w/ Footings EA. $4,500.00 16 $72,000.00 16. Steel Suport Beams L.F. $300.00 300 $90,000.00 17. Vulcraft 2C18 Non-Composite Steel Deck S.F. $10.00 3,840 $38,400.00 18. Hand Rail Guard L.F. $300.00 150 $45,000.00 19. Intall Chain Link Fence L.F. $80.00 310 $24,800.00 20. Install Pathway Lights including Conduit/Wire/Pull Boxes E.A. $8,500.00 10 $85,000.00 TOTAL $617,934.20 Bid Amount ---PAGE BREAK--- ALTERNATIVE 6 - SHORTEN RUNWAY BY 400 FEET Description Amount Unit Amount Unit Cost Pavement Removal - Runway 1 28,000 SF 3,111.11 SY $45.00 per SY $140,000.00 Pavement Removal - Taxiway A Connectors 23,500 SF 2,611.11 SY $45.00 per SY $117,500.00 Pavement Construction - Taxiway A Connectors 11,000 SF 1,222.22 SY $180.00 per SY $220,000.00 Pavement marking removal 1,200 SF $3.60 SF $4,320.00 Pavement markings 2,500 SF $2.70 SF $6,750.00 Stormwater Improvements 1 LS $35,000.00 LS $35,000.00 AGIS 1 LS $135,000.00 LS $135,000.00 Lighting relocation - Taxiway 1 LS $54,000.00 LS $54,000.00 Lighting relocation - Runway 1 LS $36,000.00 LS $36,000.00 PAPI Relocation w/ new foundations 1 LS $27,000.00 LS $27,000.00 Taxiway Sign Relocation w/ Foundations 5 EA $5,500.00 EA $27,500.00 Total $803,070.00 Rate ---PAGE BREAK--- ALTERNATIVE 7 - SHIFT RUNWAY BY 400 FEET Description Amount Unit Amount Unit Cost Pavement Removal - Runway 1 28,000 SF 3,111.11 SY $45.00 per SY $140,000.00 Pavement Removal - Taxiway A Connectors (Both Ends) 56,000 SF 6,222.22 SY $45.00 per SY $280,000.00 Pavement Construction - Taxiway A & Connectors (Runway 19 End) 31,000 SF 3,444.44 SY $180.00 per SY $620,000.00 Pavement Construction - Runway 19 30,000 SF 3,333.33 SY $200.00 per SY $666,666.67 Pavement marking removal 2,800 SF $3.60 SF $10,080.00 Pavement markings 5,000 SF $2.70 SF $13,500.00 Stormwater Improvements 1 LS $70,000.00 LS $70,000.00 AGIS 1 LS $135,000.00 LS $135,000.00 Lighting relocation- Taxiway 1 LS $108,000.00 LS $108,000.00 Lighting relocation- Runway 1 LS $72,000.00 LS $72,000.00 PAPI Relocation w/ new foundations 2 LS $27,000.00 LS $54,000.00 Taxiway Sign Relocation w/ Foundations 10 EA $5,500.00 ES $55,000.00 Fence Removal 865 LF $13.50 per LF $11,677.50 Fence Installation 3,070 LF $76.50 per LF $234,855.00 Land acquisition 11.7 ac $100,000.00 per ac $1,170,000.00 Golf Course Hole 1 Reintegration 1 LS $1,600,000.00 LS $1,600,000.00 Total $5,240,779.17 Rate