18-Civil Narrative 8-29-24.pdf

915.838.3100 main

601 North Mesa, Suite 1475 El Paso, Texas 79901

Civil Narrative

Ysleta Land Port of Entry Pavement Repairs

INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE

797 S. ZARAGOZA RD.

EL PASO, TEXAS 79927

Prepared For:

Richter Architects 201 South Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Prepared By:

Walter P Moore

601 North Mesa Street Suite 1475

El Paso, Texas 79901

August 29, 2024

Civil Narrative

Ysleta Land Port of Entry Pavement Repairs, El Paso, Texas

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purpose

Site Location

Permitting

Traffic Control Plan

Site Paving and Layout

Low Embodied Carbon Materials

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Cost Reduction

Site Utilities

Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Erosion Control

Appendix

Exhibit A – El Paso Water Surrounding Utilities Map

PURPOSE

This design narrative is a summary of general pavement design recommendations by Walter P Moore and

Associates, Inc. for the proposed Ysleta Land Port of Entry (YLPOE) Pavement Repairs in El Paso, Texas.

Described below are the references and assumptions used in writing this report:

• Statement of Work for Architect-Engineer (A/E) Contract for Pavement Replacement Repairs at the Ysleta LPOE, El Paso, TX. Project Number 354 (Ysleta).

• The design code for pavement repairs scope items will be based upon guidelines set forth by

General Services Administration (GSA) and other applicable jurisdictions.

• All site paving must be in accordance with any Owner guidelines, U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) Design Standard for U.S. Land Port of Entry, GSA Low Embodied Carbon Concrete and Environmentally Preferable Asphalt Standards, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)

Pavement Manual, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) requirements. The design will comply with the most stringent of the aforementioned documents.

• GSA and EPA requirements for storm water detention, pollution prevention, and quality will need to be adhered to.

• Executive Order 13690, Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) and the PBS Floodplain

Management Policy and Desk Guide (PBS 1095.7) will need to be adhered to.

• Traffic Study Data collected on December 6 and 7, 2022 prepared by CJ Hensch & Associates Inc.

was considered for the design of the pavement section.

• Pavement Design Report by HVJ Associates Inc. dated July 7, 2022, prepared for Cushing Terrell.

• Geotechnical Investigation by HVJ Associates Inc. dated April 6, 2022, prepared for Cushing

Terrell.

• Design Guide for Operational Excellence dated May 6, 2019.

• Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14)

While the information furnished herein is from reliable sources, the information is subject to change without notice and is subject to the following, all of which could produce substantially different results:

changes in assumptions about future circumstances, events outside our control, differences in Federal

(GSA and CBP) criteria, and changes of price, rental and other conditions.

SITE LOCATION

The project is located within the City of El Paso, Texas at the existing site of the Ysleta Land Port of Entry bounded by Cesar E. Chavez Border Highway (Loop 375) to the north, Rio Del Norte Drive to the east, and the Rio Grande to the west. The existing site is mostly paved and hosts one of the international border crossings between Mexico and the United States for pedestrian, vehicular, and commercial use, as well as multiple buildings for CBP operations and maintenance. The project consists of ten (10) sites within the

YLPOE as shown in Figure 1 below.

Representatives from Walter P Moore visited the site on January 3 and 4, 2023. During our site visit we mapped areas of water ponding and pavement failures, including stress cracking, spalling and general joint conditions. We performed an additional site visit on August 6, 2024 to include additional areas to our recommendations (Sites F-J).

During our site visit we noted a number of existing structures and equipment (ie, bollards, X-Ray machines, cameras,etc.) that will be remain and must be protected on SITES C and D.

Figure 1. Ysleta Land Port of Entry Pavement Repairs Project Sites

SITE A

SITE B

SITE C

SITE D

SITE E

SITE F

SITE G

SITE H

SITE I

SITE J

PERMITTING

It is anticipated that review from several governing agencies will be required prior to beginning construction:

• U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)

• Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

• Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)

TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN

A traffic control plan was developed for each site to allow the flow of all modes of transportation during the pavement replacement. The proposed lane closures need to be coordinated between the Contractor and CBP offices to ensure there is no risk to the operations of the port of entry and the safety of the users and personnel is not comprised.

Each site has a corresponding phase for a closure of a different area. It is critical that at least one lane of the SENTRI area within SITE C is always open and available for use. Several times during daily operations there are specific lane closures by CBP while at other times all travel lanes are open. To maximize the closure time, the Contractor should coordinate with CBP to develop scheduled closures per site.

The different phases developed shall serve as a guide for typical area closures.

No additional hardstand is included as part of the Statement of Work (SOW) for traffic control purposes.

If the contractor decides that additional hardstand for construction roads is needed, Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) Section 438 must be complied with per the P100 Facilities Standards for the Public

Buildings Service, Section 4.8.1 Site Grading and Drainage.

SITE PAVING AND LAYOUT

Pavement designs are based on in-situ subsurface soil conditions as determined by the Geotechnical

Investigation by HVJ dated April 6, 2022, prepared for Cushing Terrell. Further, the Pavement Design

Report prepared by HVJ Associates Inc. for Cushing Terrell dated July 7, 2022, includes recommended pavement designs for the pavement repair areas at the YLPOE. We have reviewed the recommended paving designs from this report as reference only.

The P100 Facility Standards for Public Building Service (PBS), outlines prescriptive civil requirements for paving for the facility to use concrete pavements at truck maneuvering areas. Additionally, the 2023 Land

Port of Entry Design Standard states rigid pavement shall be used “under canopies, at dock aprons and at inspection areas, in maneuvering areas where vehicles are required to turn frequently, in hot climates where exposure to intense heat reduces the stability of flexible pavement and at all commercial areas.”

To meet this criteria, we will be using rigid pavement (ie, Portland cement concrete pavement) for all areas of pavement reconstruction for this project. Due to the layout of the proposed improvements, and the fact that most of the adjacent pavement to remain is jointed pavement, we recommend the placement of jointed concrete pavement rather than Continuous Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP).

We recommend CPCD for the sections that require complete reconstruction, which refers to the complete replacement of concrete and base courses. Although CPCD does not include reinforcing, we recommend minimum reinforcement in order to minimize temperature and shrinkage cracking. The proposed design should follow standard spacing of joints at maximum of 15 feet.

We computed the Equivalent Single Axel Load (ESAL) based on the commercial area traffic counts (SITES

A, B, F, G, H, I, and J) that were gathered on December 2022, by CJ Hensch. Based on a base year Annual

Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of 521, truck growth factor of 4%, and the 5-axle truck category load factor of 1.55, we computed the total 50-year ESALs to be 44,999,539, as seen on Figure 2 below. For Sites I and

J, we computed the ESALs to be 4,499,953. This was calculated assuming only 10% percent of the commercial traffic goes to each loading dock. Percent of traffic for the loading docks is based on facility operational information provided by GSA and ESAL data provided in the Pavement Design Report by HVJ

Associates.

Figure 2. Traffic Data for Design and Historic ESALs for SITES A, B, F, G, H, I, and J.

To compute the required slab thickness, AASHTO 93 design procedure was used as recommended by the

TxDOT Pavement Design Manual. Chapter 8 Section 4 of this manual also recommends input variables that are needed for the design.

The proposed design slab thickness for SITES A and B within the commercial area was computed to be 12-inches, which is the maximum recommended thickness. Calculations for the pavement design are shown below in Figure 3. For the subgrade beneath the pavement we recommend the two base courses listed below:

• 4" HMAC (Hot-Mix Asphaltic Concrete) Type B PG 64-22 or higher

• 4” Flexible Base – Type D

Figure 3. AASHTO Rigid Pavement Structural Design for SITES A and B.

The proposed design slab thickness for SITES I and J within the commercial area was computed to be 9-inches. Calculations for the pavement design are shown below in Figure 4. For the subgrade beneath the pavement we recommend the two base courses listed below:

Figure 4. AASHTO Rigid Pavement Structural Design for SITES I and J.

Traffic count data within the Pavement Design Report by HVJ Associates Inc. dated July 7, 2022, was used for the Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) areas (SITES C-E). We used the computed Equivalent Single Axel

Load (ESAL) of 2,996,514 for SITES C, and D which correspond to sections PINSPRD2 and SINSPRD1, respectively.

TxDOT Pavement Design Manual. The proposed design slab thickness for SITES C, and D within the POV area was computed to be 8-inches. Calculations for the pavement design are shown below in Figure 5. For the subgrade beneath the pavement we recommend the two base courses listed below:

Figure 5. AASHTO Rigid Pavement Structural Design for SITES C, and D.

Similarly, we used the computed Equivalent Single Axel Load (ESAL) of 5,993,029 taken from the Pavement

Design Report by HVJ Associates Inc. dated July 7, 2022, for SITE E, which corresponds to section PORTRD1.

TxDOT Pavement Design Manual. The proposed design slab thickness for SITE E within the POV area was computed to be 9-inches. Calculations for the pavement design are shown below in Figure 6. For the subgrade beneath the pavement we recommend the two base courses listed below:

Figure 6. AASHTO Rigid Pavement Structural Design for SITE E.

Type D is specified to allow for the use of crushed concrete for all pavement sections. Both Type A and crushed concrete are allowed as part of Type D TxDOT Item 247 Flexible Base. If crushed concrete is not available, we recommend using Type A material. Per ACI 318-14, Section R24.24 - Shrinkage and temperature reinforcement, Table 24.4.3.2 – Minimum ratios of deformed shrinkage and temperature reinforcement area to gross concrete area, the minimum reinforcement ratio for 60 ksi deformed bars is

0.0020 (0.20%).

The Land Port of Entry Design Standards states that “CBP prefers steel-plate speed bumps and must be anchored by metal spikes or lag bolts to prevent movement.” To meet this criteria, we are specifying a

2.5” high heavy duty welded sheet metal speed bump.

LOW EMBODIED CARBON MATERIALS

Per the U.S. General Services Administration Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Low Embodied Carbon

Requirements dated April 2024, the compliance documentation required for concrete, cement, asphalt, and steel is a “product-specific Type III (third-party verified) Environmental Product Declaration (EPD), which conforms with ISO 14025 and ISO 21930.”

We have researched available EPDs in the El Paso/Ysleta area. There are EPDs available for Portland cement concrete with similar performance requirements for this project available in the area that meet the GWP limits. Asphalt EPDs are also available in the El Paso/Ysleta area. Additionally, our research shown the nearest reinforcing bar supplier with an EPD is located in Mesa, Arizona which is approximately 430 miles west of the project site.

Low Embodied Carbon Concrete

The prime contractor shall provide low embodied carbon concrete mix that meets the global warming potential (GWP) limits shown on Table 1 below. The GWP limit includes carbon dioxide emitted during the production stage only, which includes extraction and upstream production, transport to facility, and manufacturing. A cradle-to-gate EPD is required to meet the documentation requirements for any concrete mix used on the project. High-early strength concrete will be allowed as needed. A 30% increase to the corresponding GWP limit is allowed for the use of high-early strength concrete.

Table 1: GSA IRA Limits for Low Embodied Carbon Concrete

Low Embodied Carbon Cement

The limits for Low Embodied Carbon Cement are shown on Table 2 below. If a concrete EPD is provided to demonstrate compliance, a cement EPD doesn’t need to be submitted to GSA.

Table 2: GSA IRA Limits for Low Embodied Carbon Cement

Low Embodied Carbon Asphalt

The limits for Low Embodied Carbon Asphalt are shown on Table 3 below. A product specific Type III EPD is required as part of the compliance documentation. Warm-Mix Asphaltic Concrete can be used in lieu of Hot-Mix Asphaltic Concrete to aid in achieving these limits.

Table 3: GSA IRA Limits for Low Embodied Carbon Asphalt

Low Embodied Carbon Steel

Additionally, there are limits for Low Embodied Carbon Steel as shown on Table 4 below. GWP limits for rebar in pavement should be met to comply with this requirement.

Table 4: GSA IRA Limits for Low Embodied Carbon Steel

LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

A life-cycle cost analysis approach was taken when determining the proposed pavement repairs. From the site visit performed, it was determined that the pavement failures observed need to be repaired before there are operational issues such as having to deviate traffic or having to perform emergency repairs without having time to develop a thorough plan for traffic control and repairs. The initial cost of the pavement repairs overall will be less than having to repair small areas over time since mobilization and material sourcing will be done only once.

The proposed pavement repairs will improve service for the users and ultimately decrease the service cost. Maintenance costs will significantly be reduced with the proposed pavement repairs since we are proposing to remove and replace most areas.

In order to reduce the disposal cost of the material, the use of onsite recycled concrete for the base can be considered. However, the Contractor will have to determine if at the time of notice to proceed, the need to mobilize a mobile crusher and haul off material will be cost effective. Generally, using recycled concrete for the base will increase the cost. Additionally, it should be noted that the use of onsite recycled concrete for the base will be determined by the ability to reach an acceptable modulus of elasticity in order to not compromise the projected performance period of the pavement.

If using onsite recycled concrete for the base results in a higher cost and a reduction in the projected performance period, it might not be feasible to consider this option. However, we do recommend taking the removed concrete to a local recycling facility in order to reduce the disposal cost of the material.

COST REDUCTION

The cost reduction by taking the removed concrete to a local recycling facility in lieu of disposal shall be considered. The evaluation of costs savings options is limited due to the specific scope of work of this project. Therefore, there are limited areas in which we can suggest a cost reduction or material alternatives.

SITE UTILITIES

Existing utility information has been obtained from El Paso Water from a subset of data from the EP

Water GIS database for the surrounding area. However, the information from this drawing only provides what is in the surrounding area. Field verification of all utilities is recommended prior to any work being completed on site. A map of existing public utilities in the surrounding area provided by EP Water is included as Exhibit A in the Appendix.

STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND EROSION CONTROL

Erosion control measures (temporary and permanent) will be installed to prevent sediment runoff during construction. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will need to be developed in accordance with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Texas Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (TPDES) General Permit No. TXR15000. Temporary BMPs, like silt fencing and reinforced fabric barriers, will be installed to prevent sediment entering the existing storm system and the adjacent right-of-ways. The disturbed site areas will be permanently stabilized per the construction documents once all activities have been completed. The temporary BMPs will be removed once the

Notice of Termination has been filed with TCEQ.

SWPPP maintenance includes inlet protection, any silt fencing needed, and weekly inspection/maintenance to ensure everything is functioning as required.

APPENDIX

EXHIBIT A – EL PASO WATER SURROUNDING UTILITIES MAP

!m !m

!m

!m !m

!m

!m

!m

!m

!m

!m !m

!m

!m

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

AM

ER

ICA

S

AV

E

RIO DEL NORTE DR

TEXAS 375 LOOP

ZARAGOZA RD

PR

IVA

TE

R D

TE

XA

S 3

L

OO

P

PRIVATE RD

PRIVATE RD

AMERICAS AVE

AM

ER

ICA

S

AV

E

PRIVATE RD

"in

P

OL

YV

INY

L C

HO

LR

IDE

SE

WER

12in AC WATER

12in PVC WATER

8in

PV

C W

AT

ER

12in AC WATER

12in PVC WATER 12in PVC WATER

09775

07880

07272

02219

09778

0977709776

08917

08916

0 250 500 750 1,000125 Feet

The map is created from a subset of data from the El Paso Water GIS database.

EPW makes no claims, no representations, and no warranties, express or implied, concerning the validity (express or implied), the reliability or the accuracy of the GIS data and GIS data products furnished by the Utilty, including the implied validity of any uses of such data. F