Amendment_0001_-_LA_ERFO_FWS_BOCH_2016-2(1).pdf

(x)

693C7319B000025 x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

Sterling VA 20166-6511

EFLHD-CO

21400 Ridgetop Circle Construction Office Eastern Federal Lands Highway Div.

Federal Highway Administration

Sterling VA 20166-6511

EFLHD-AC

21400 Ridgetop Circle Acquisitions Office Eastern Federal Lands Highway Div.

Federal Highway Administration

SEE BLOCK 1407/19/20190001

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

06/21/2019

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge Project LA ERFO FW BOCH 2016-2(1)

The purpose of this Amendment is to:

1) Revise the Plan to update the materials specifications for Timber.

2) Provide additional government furnished information.

3) Provide a summary of responses to questions/clarifications asked by potential bidders.

4) Reschedule the Bid Opening date to July 30, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. EST.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands HiQhway Division

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE

21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166-6511

In Reply Refer To: HFPP-15

Ms. Kristin Sanders State Historic Preservation Officer Louisiana Office of Cultural Development P.O. Box 44247 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4241

Subject: LA ERFO FW BOCH 2016-2(1) - St Tammany Parish, LA LA ERFO FW BLBA 2016-2(1) - Ouachita Parish, LA Section 106 Consultation

Dear Ms. Sanders:

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, of the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is proposing to replace existing elevated boardwalks within Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge and the Black Bayou Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The work on this project is over water. The proposed design and construction will avoid where possible, impacts to the existing marshland. The damage to the sites resulted from historic rainfall and flooding between December 2015 and January 2016.

The boardwalks will be completely reconstructed. The existing piles will be cut at just below the mud line, and the remaining materials will be removed from the project site. The new boardwalk will be built in the same place using steel piles for more durability. The wood decking and guardrails will be replaced in kind to meet FWS requirements. See enclosed topographic maps and field trip report for additional information.

Bogue Chitto NWR: (30.536969/-89.812299) Remove remains of old Pearl River boardwalk and rebuild. Project is estimated at 800 feet.

Black Bayou NWR: (32.601391/-92.031786). Remove remains and rebuild the old Nature Trail, Wetlands boardwalk, and Observation Deck. Project is estimated at 6,000 feet.

FHWA reviewed the online map of historic structures and districts provided at the Division of Historic Preservation website on February 25, 2019, and determined there are no known cultural resources in either area. In addition, the proposed boardwalk replacements would be re constructed within the footprint of the existing boardwalks in areas that have already been disturbed. Therefore, the FHW A has determined that there would be no potential to affect historic properties as a result of the proposed action.

Form FHWA-201

(Rev. 11-67)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained as file material. Do not prepare carbons. Not to be used in lieu of Form FHWA-121 for informal correspondence.

P a g e | 1 cc: TS Reading, Highway, Bridge.

\\fhfl15fileserve.flhd.fhwa.dot.gov\data\PROJECTS\_FWS\BOCH\la2016-2(1)\Techserv\Geotech\Reports\Preliminary Memo\BOCH LA2016-2(1) MA.docx

SUBJECT: Project BOCH LA2016-2(1) –Geotechnical Findings and Recommendations

TO MESSAGE/COMMENT FROM/DATE

J. Wilson Project Manager

Through:

S.

Whittemore Project Management Branch Chief

INTRODUCTION

This Geotechnical Memorandum summarizes the results of the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, and represents our evaluations and recommendations for the reconstruction of the Pearl River boardwalks at Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana. Figure 1 in Appendix A shows the site location and vicinity maps.

GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

The boardwalks, located within the St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana were damaged during the 2016 record flooding event. This project includes the re-construction of the above-listed damaged boardwalks.

GEOLOGIC SETTING

Site Geology

Louisiana Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map (2012) indicated that project sites are located within the following geologic formations:

Hb: Backswamp deposits ‐ Fine-grained Holocene deposits of large rivers underlying the flood basins between the meander belts.

Hsm: Small river meander belt deposits – point bar and associated overbank deposits underlying the meander belts of the Pearl River.

The Geologic Map is shown in Figure 2, Appendix A.

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

General

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division’s (EFLHD) Subsurface Exploration Team performed the drilling operations for this project in October 2018. Two (2) soil borings were drilled at the site. Boring BH18-01 was drilled in the parking lot next to the trail entrance and Boring HA18-01 was drilled near the boardwalk. Borings BH18-01 and HA18-01 extended to depths of 17.4 ft and 7.6 ft below existing site grades, respectively. The boreholes were laid out by EFLHD field personnel by measuring distances from mapped landmarks and using a hand-held GPS unit. BH18-01 was advanced to the termination depths using a CME 750, rotary, ATV-mounted drill rig and HA18-01 was advanced

M.

Abdelhadi, PE, Geotechnical Engineer

M.

Abouzakhm, PE

Division Geotechnical Engineer

Through:

L.

O’Brien Technical Services Engineer

5/31/2019

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained

P a g e | 2 using a hand-auger since the drilling rig was unable to reach the boring location.

A Borings Location Plan is attached in Appendix B.

Sampling

Boring BH18-01 was advanced to the termination depth using 3¾-inch (ID) hollow stem augers. Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was performed using a 2¼-inch (OD) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO T206. SPT soil samples were typically recovered at 2.5-foot intervals. Samples were obtained by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24-inches, or until auger refusal, into the undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140-lb automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler the middle foot of the 24-inch sample interval is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-value. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6-in. interval was recorded on field boring logs.

Water levels, if present, were measured at the time of completion of each boring and prior to backfilling the borehole. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of the drilling.

Representative portions of split-spoon and hand auger samples were preserved in glass jars. All samples were later transported to EFLHD’s Materials Testing Laboratory in Sevierville, Tennessee for laboratory testing and storage.

The sampling sequence and associated jar samples for each boring are presented on its appropriate boring log in Appendix C.

Data Summary

The results of the field tests and measurements were recorded on the driller’s logs and appropriate data sheets in the field. These data sheets and logs contain information concerning the boring methods, samples attempted and recovered, indications of materials encountered. They also contain interpretations by the exploration foreman of the subsurface conditions based on the performance of the equipment and cuttings brought to the surface by the drilling tools.

Therefore, the field data represents both factual and interpretative information.

The boring logs in Appendix C represent a compilation of field and laboratory data and description of the soil samples by the geotechnical engineer.

LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration to aid in classification and evaluation of engineering parameters of the subsurface materials. The following tests were performed on selected samples.

• Particle size analysis (AASHTO T-11 and T-27)

• Moisture content (AASHTO T-265)

• Liquid Limit (AASHTO T-89)

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained

P a g e | 3

• Plastic Limit (AASHTO T-90)

A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in Table 1. Laboratory test results are provided in Appendix D.

Table 1 – Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results Boring

No.

Sam ple No.

Sample Depth (feet)

Gravel

Sand

Fines

Plasticity Index

Moisture Content

BH18-01 J-1 1-3 - 40.2 59.8 6 20.0

BH18-01 J-6 13-15 - 77.8 22.2 NP 21.4

NP: non-plastic soil

Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface conditions encountered during our drilling operations are listed the boring logs. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between soil types on the logs represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. It should be noted that one or more of the units may be absent at specific locations.

GEOTEHNICAL EVALUATION AND DESIGN ATERNATIVES

Geotechnical Evaluation Due to the presence of shallow groundwater and loose and very loose soils, shallow foundations would be supported on soils with low bearing capacity and will likely exhibit significant settlements (differential and total) over the life time of the structure. Also, dewatering may have a major impact during the construction process due to the sensitive nature of the habitat in the wildlife.

Based on discussions with the design team we concluded that 6” by 6” driven square timber posts will represent the most economic foundation system for the proposed structure, based on the soil profile and anticipated structural loads.

General Foundation design was performed in general accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2017).

Design analyses were performed based on data obtained from our subsurface exploration program and laboratory test results, where available. The soil properties presented in Table 2 below were developed based on empirical correlations between available laboratory test results and SPT N-values.

Design analyses were performed using the soil profile encountered in the borings using the material properties below.

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained

P a g e | 4

Table 2 – Soil Parameters for Foundation Design Analysis

Material Type Depth, below

Existing Grade (ft)

Buoyant Unit Weight, γ

(pcf)

Friction Angle, Φ

(deg.)

Cohesion, c (psf)

Lean Clay - Silt 0-20 37.5 0 600

Scour No scour data were available at the time this memo was being prepared.

Bridge Loading Structural loads were provided by EFLHD Bridge design team are presented in the table below.

Table 3 - Structural Loads

Structure Max Axial Load (kips)/pile

Max Lateral Load (kips)/pile

Boardwalk 6.25 0.75

RECOMMENDATIONS

The bearing resistance of a recommended driven timber posts was evaluated in accordance with Section 10 of AASHTO (2017), LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. We summarized the results of our calculations in the table below:

We recommend that a hammer/blows capacity relationship analysis be performed by the successful bidder prior to mobilization of the equipment to the site. The proposed hammer should have adequate energy to efficiently install the foundation element to the specified capacities without inducing excessive stresses on the timber posts.

Table 4 – Foundation Axial Resistance

Structure Foundation Type and Size

Minimum Embedment

Length (feet)

Factored Axial

Resistance (kips)/pile

Boardwalk 6-inch square timber post 12 7.0

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained

P a g e | 5

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and test described in the section Procedures and Results of this memorandum have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these exploration and test represent conditions at the specific locations indicated.

Subsurface conditions beyond these locations may vary. The Analyses Recommendations sections of this memorandum include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing the design. These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor.

REFERENCES

AASHTO, 2017. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification. 8th ed.

Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

FHWA, 2014. Standard Specifications For Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, Washington D.C.: US Department of Transportation.

FLH, 2017. Rock Characterization Guidelines, Washington D.C.: US Department of Transportation - FHWA.

FLH, 2017. Soil Description and Identification Guidelines, Washington D.C.:

US Department of Transportation - FHWA.

Heinrich, P.V., McCulloh, R.P., and Snead, John, 2004, Gulfport 30 x 60 minute geologic quadrangle: Louisiana Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map (1:100,000) 7, scale 1:100,000

APPENDIX:

Appendix A – Figures Appendix B – Borings Location Map Appendix C – Boring Logs Appendix D – Laboratory Test Results Appendix E – Selected Photographs

Appendix A-1

APPENDIX A – FIGURES

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

STATEREG

BOCH LA2016-2(1)

TOTAL

SHEETS

2LA

FIGURE 1

Site Location and Vicinity Map

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Appendix A-2

APPENDIX B – BORINGS LOCATION MAP

Source:

LA

FIGURE 2

GEOLOGIC MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

STATEREG SHEET

NO. PROJECT

TOTAL

SHEETS

2BOCH LA2016-2(1)

Heinrich, P.V., McCulloh, R.P., and Snead, John, 2004, Gulfport 30 x 60 minute geologic quadrangle: Louisiana Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map (1:100,000) 7, scale 1:100,000

BOCH LA2016-2(1)

Appendix

APPENDIX C – BORING LOGS

10/04/2018

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Name Using Laboratory TestsA Group

Symbol Group NameB

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

More than 50% retained on No. 200 Sieve

GRAVELS

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 Sieve

Clean GRAVELS Less than 5% fines E

Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3C GW Well-graded GRAVEL D

Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 C GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL D

GRAVELS with fines More than 12% fines E

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty GRAVEL D,F Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey GRAVEL D,F

SANDS

Less than 50% retained on No. 4 Sieve

Clean SANDS Less than 5% fines I

Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 C SW Well-graded SAND H

Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 C SP Poorly-graded SAND H

SANDS with fines More than 12% fines I

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty SAND F,H Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey SAND F,H

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

50% or more passes the No. 200 Sieve

SILTS and CLAYS Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above the “A” line J CL Lean CLAY K,L,M PI < 4 or plots below “A” line J ML SILT K,L,M

Organic Liquid limit – oven dried Liquid limit – not dried < 0.75 OL Organic CLAY K,L,M,N

Organic SILT K,L,M,O

SILTY and CLAYS Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat CLAY K,L,M PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic SILT K,L,M

Organic Liquid limit – oven dried Liquid limit – not dried < 0.75 OH Organic CLAY K,L,M,P

Organic SILT K,L,M,Q

HIGHLY ORGANIC

SOILS Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT PEAT A Based on material passing the 3-inch sieve.

B If field sample contains cobbles or boulders, add “with cobbles” or “boulders” or both, to group name.

C Cu = D60/D10 Cc = (D30)2 / (D10 x D60) D If soil contains ≥15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

E Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay GP-GM poorly-graded GRAVEL with silt GP-GC poorly-graded GRAVEL with clay

F If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM G If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

H If soil contains ≥15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

I Sand with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay SP-SM poorly-graded SAND with silt SP-SC poorly-graded SAND with clay J If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty

CLAY.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel”, whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to beginning of group name.

M If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to beginning of group name.

N PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

APPARENT DENSITY OF COARSE-

GRAINED SOIL

SPT N-value (blows per foot) Apparent Density

0 to 4 Very Loose

5 to 10 Loose

11 to 30 Medium Dense

31 to 50 Dense

> 50 Very Dense

CONSISTENCY OF

FINE-GRAINED SOIL

SPT N-value (blows per foot) Consistency

0 to 1 Very Soft

2 to 4 Soft

5 to 8 Firm

9 to 15 Stiff

16 to 30 Very Stiff

> 30 Hard

SOIL STRUCTURE TERMS

Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers > 1/4 inch (6 mm), note thickness and inclination.

Laminated(1) Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers < 1/4 inch (6 mm), note thickness and inclination.

Fissured(1) Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little resistance to fracturing.

Slickensided(1) Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.

Blocky(1) Cohesive soil that can be broken down into smaller angular lumps which resists further breakdown.

Disrupted Soil structure is broken and mixed. Infers that material has moved substantially -landslide debris.

Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.

Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soil, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay; < 1/4 inch (6 mm) note thickness.

(1) Do not use laminated, fissured, slickensided, or blocky for coarse-grained soils.

Descriptive Terminology for Boring Logs

Field descriptions of borings are based on the FLH Soil and Rock Description and Identification Guidelines that generally follow the Visual-Manual Procedure (ASTM D 2488). The soil classifications shown on the boring logs are based on laboratory tests (ASTM D 2487) when the two-letter group symbol follows the group name in parenthesis.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT): the SPT consists of driving a 2 in (50 mm) O.D. split barrel sampler a depth of 18 in (450 mm) or 24 in (600 mm) using a 140 lb (63.6 kg) hammer with a 30 in (750 mm) drop. The blow count is the number of blows recorded for each 6 inch (50 mm) increment.

The N-value is the total number of blows for the second and third increments. Note that the N-values shown on the boring logs do not include any corrections for non-standard sampler size, hammers, drill rods, etc.

ANGULARITY OF

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Angular

Sharp edges and relatively plane sides with unpolished surfaces

Subangular

Similar to angular description, but with rounded edges

Subrounded

Nearly plane sides, but will have well-rounded corners and edges.

Rounded

Smoothly curved sides and no edges

PARTICLE SIZE OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Component Grain Size Limits

Boulders > 12” (> 300 mm)

Cobbles 3 – 12” (75 – 300 mm)

Coarse Gravel 3/4 - 3" (19 - 75 mm)

Fine Gravel #4 Sieve - 3/4" (4.75 - 19 mm)

Coarse Sand #10 - #4 Sieve (2.00 - 4.75 mm)

Medium Sand #40 - #10 Sieve (0.425 - 2.00 mm)

Fine Sand #200 - #40 Sieve (0.075 - 0.425 mm)

10/04/2018

GRAIN/CRYSTAL SIZE FOR ROCKS (MODIFIED AFTER WENTWORTH, 1972)

Grain Size Description Criteria Less than 0.003 inches (<0.075 mm)

Very fine grained Cannot be distinguished by unaided eye. Few to no mineral grains are visible with a hand lens.

0.003 to 0.02 inches (0.075 to 0.425 mm) Fine grained

Few grain/crystal boundaries are visible; grains can be distinguished with difficulty by the unaided eye but can be somewhat distinguished by hand lens.

0.02 to 0.08 inches (0.425 to 2 mm) Medium grained Most grain/crystal boundaries are visible; grains distinguishable by eye and with the aid of a hand lens.

0.08 to 0.2 inches

(2 to 4.75 mm) Coarse grained Grain/crystal boundaries are visible; grains distinguishable with the naked eye and hand lens.

Greater than 0.2 inches

(>4.75 mm)

Very coarse grained

Grain/crystal boundaries are Clearly visible; grains are distinguishable with the naked eye.

GRAIN SHAPE (FOR SEDIMENTARY ROCKS)

Description Characteristic

Angular Showing very little evidence of wear. Grain edges and corners are sharp. Secondary corners are numerous and sharp.

Subangular

Showing definite effects of wear. Grain edges and corners are slightly rounded off. Secondary corners are slightly less numerous and slightly less sharp than in angular grains.

Subrounded Showing considerable wear. Grain edges and corners are rounded to smooth curves. Secondary corners are reduced greatly in number and highly rounded.

Rounded Showing extreme wear. Grain edges and corners are smoothed off the broad curves. Secondary corner are few in number and rounded.

Well-rounded Completely worn. Grain edges or corners are not present. No secondary edges or corners are present. DEGREE OF WEATHERING

Term Description Grade

Fresh No visible sign of rock material weathering; slight discoloration on major discontinuity surface is possible. I

Slightly Weathered

Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces. All rock material may be discolored by weathering and the external surface may be somewhat weaker than in its fresh condition.

II

Moderately Weathered

Less than half the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil.

Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones. A minimum 2-inch (50 mm) diameter sample cannot be broken readily by hand across the rock fabric.

III

Highly Weathered

More than half of the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones.

A minimum 2-inch (50 mm) diameter sample can be broken readily by hand across the rock fabric.

IV

Completely Weathered

All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact. Material can be granulated by hand. If rock is considered to be completely weathered, use FLH Soil Description and Identification Guidelines to describe the residual soil material.

V

Residual Soil

All rock material is converted to soil. The mass structure and material fabric are destroyed but the apparent structure remains intact. There may be a large change in volume, but the soil has not been significantly transported. Material can be easily broken-down by hand. If rock is considered to be completely weathered, use FLH Soil Description and Identification Guidelines to describe the residual soil material.

VI

RELATIVE STRENGTH OF SOIL INFILLING (ISRM, 1978 & 1981)

Grade Description Field Identification Approximate

Uniaxial Compressive

Strength

S1 Very Soft Easily penetrated several inches by fist

<3.5 psi (<25 kPa)

S2 Soft Easily penetrated severl inches by thumb

3.5 - 7 psi (25 - 50 kPa)

S3 Firm

Can be penetrated several inches by thumb with moderate effort

7 - 14.5 psi (50 - 100 kPa)

S4 Stiff

Readily indented by thumb but penetrated only with great effort

14.5 - 36 psi (100 - 250 kPa)

S5 Very Stiff Readily indented by thumbnail

36 - 72.5 psi (250 - 500 kPa)

S6 Hard Indented with difficulty by thumbnail

>72 psi (>500 kPa)

RELATIVE STRENGTH OF INTACT ROCK SPECIMENS (ISRM, 1978 &1981)

Grade Description Field Indentificaiton Approximate Uniaxial Compressive Strength

R0 Extremely Weak Rock Specimen can be indented by thumbnail 35 - 150 psi

(250 - 1,000 kPa)

R1 Very Weak Rock

Specimen crumbles under sharp blow with point of geological hammer, and can be peeled with a pocket knife.

150 - 725 psi (1,000 - 5,000 kPa)

R2 Weak Rock Shallow cuts or scrapes can be made in a specimen with a pocket knife. A firm blow with a geological hammer point creates shallow indents.

725 - 3,500 psi (5,000 - 25,000 kPa)

R3 Medium Strong Rock

Specimen cannot be scraped or cut with a pocket knife.

Specimen can be fractured with a single firm blow with a geologic hammer point.

3,500 - 7,250 psi (25,000 - 50,000 kPa)

R4 Strong Rock Specimen requires more than one firm blow of the geologic hammer point to fracture.

7,250 - 14,500 psi (50,000 - 100,000 kPa)

R5 Very Strong Rock

Specimen requires many firm blows from the hammer end of the geologic hammer to fracture.

14,500 - 36,250 psi (100,000 - 250,000 kPa)

R6 Extremely Strong Rock

Specimen can only be chipped with firm blows from the hammer end of the geologic hammer.

>36,250 psi (>250,000 kPa)

JRC RANGES (ISRM, 1978 &1981)

DISCONTINUITY CONDITION (ISRM, 1978, 1981)

Condition Description

Excellent Condition

Very rough surfaces, no separation, hard discontinuity wall (>R2).

Good Condition

Slightly rough surfaces, separation less than ~0.04 inches (1 mm), hard discontinuity wall (>R2).

Fair Condition

Slightly rough surface, separation greater than ~0.04 inches (1 mm), soft discontinuity wall (<R3).

Poor Condition

Slickensided surfaces, or soft gouge less than ~0.2 inches (5 mm) thick, or open discontinuities between ~0.4 and 0.2 inches (1 to 5 mm).

Very Poor Condition

Soft gouge greater than ~0.2 inches (5 mm), or open discontinuities greater than ~0.2 inches (5 mm).

DISCONTINUITY SPACING (INCLUDES

JOINTS/FRACTURES, BEDDING, AND FAULTS

Description Spacing of Discontinuity Extremely Widely

Spaced >20 feet (>6 m)

Very Widely Spaced

~6 to 20 feet (2 to 6 m)

Widely Spaced ~2 to 6 feet (600 mm to 2 m)

Moderately Spaced

~8 inches to 2 feet (200 to 600 mm)

Closely Spaced ~2 to 8 inches (60 to 200 mm)

Very Closely Spaced

~3/4 to 2 inches (20 to 60 mm)

Extremely Closely Spaced

<3/4 inches (<20 mm)

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 (%) =

𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑆𝑆𝑜𝑜𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑖𝑖𝐿𝐿 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖𝐿𝐿𝑝𝑝𝐿𝐿𝑝𝑝 > 4 𝑖𝑖𝐿𝐿𝑝𝑝ℎ𝐿𝐿𝑝𝑝 (100 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)

𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑜𝐿𝐿𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿

𝑥𝑥 100

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 =

𝑁𝑁𝑆𝑆𝑚𝑚𝑁𝑁𝐿𝐿𝐶𝐶 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐿𝐿𝑇𝑇𝐿𝐿𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶𝑇𝑇𝑝𝑝𝐿𝐿𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝑝𝑝

𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑜𝐿𝐿𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝐿𝐿𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝑆𝑆 (𝑜𝑜𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿)

𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅 (%) = �

𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑜𝐿𝐿𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑅𝑅𝐿𝐿𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝐿𝐿𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝑆𝑆

𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑜𝐿𝐿𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿 𝑅𝑅𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝐿𝐿𝑆𝑆

� ∗ 100

1.4

0.6

0.6

2.0

1.7

1.5

1.6

3-4-3-3

1-2-2-2

1-1-1-1

1-0-0-0

0-0-0-0

1-1-3-4

0-2-2-3

Gravel road base

Sandy SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), firm, tan, moist, low plasticity. Fill. A-4(2)

Silty SAND (SM), very loose, light gray, wet, fine to medium. A-2-4(0)

11'-13': lean clay layer

Bottom of boring 17.4 feet

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

0.6

7.0

17.0

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 712278.28 Easting: 3794219.24

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %) hrs

6.5 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

9/14/18 Moody

HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with soil cuttings.

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

17.4 ft

(Blows / ft)

Undisturbed (UD)

9/14/18

R ec

(f t)

Project Name:

Surface Elevation:

6.3 ft

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

N o.

St Tammany Parish

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3.8 in.

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

HSA

BH18-01

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Sunny

Parking lot

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

P P

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/7

/1

:5

M

P R

O

JE

C T

S

F W

S \B

O C

H \L

A

-2

(1

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\B O

C H

L A

-2 (1

G

P J

Sheet: 1 of 1

0.6

0.6

0.6

Silty SAND, loose, tan, moist, fine to medium.

Lean Clay with Sand, soft, gray, wet, medium plasticity.

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

3.0

7.6

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: Easting:

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %) hrs

4.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

9/14/18 Farley

HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with soil cuttings.

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

Undisturbed (UD)

9/14/18

R ec

(f t)

Project Name:

Surface Elevation:

4.0 ft

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

N o.

St Tammany Parish

E le va tio n (f ee t)

2.0 in.

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

N/A

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

Hand Auger

HA18-01

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Sunny

Boardwalk

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

P P

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

/7

/1

:5

M

P R

O

JE

C T

S

F W

S \B

O C

H \L

A

-2

(1

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\B O

C H

L A

-2 (1

G

P J

Sheet: 1 of 1

APPENDIX D – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Sample # E-19- Jar # Wet Wt (g) Dry Wt (g) Jat Wt (g)

Total Sample Wt (g)

T-265 MC

E-19-0025 BH18-01/J-1 1111.8 998.8 435.0 563.8 20.0

E-19-0026 BH18-01/J-6 1454.9 1275.1 435.0 840.1 21.4

SOIL DATA

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

BOCH LA2016-2(1)

BOGUE CHITTO BOARDWALK

FHWA/EFLHD

A-4(2)6272120.01-3BH18-01/J-1 BDW

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-2-4(0)NPNVNP21.413-15BH18-01/J-6 BDW

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

SOIL DATA

NO.

USCSDESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% COBBLES

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

13.0 3.1 22.4 59.8

(ft.)

BOCH LA2016-2(1)

BOGUE CHITTO BOARDWALK

FHWA/EFLHD

BDW BH18-01/J-1 1-3 Sandy silty clay CL-ML

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

7.3 9.7 56.2 22.2

BDW BH18-01/J-6 13-15 Silty sand SM

APPENDIX E – SELECTED PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1: Drill setup at boring BH18-01 at the Trail Entrance – looking north

Photograph 2: Hand auger at boring HA18-01 at the Trail – looking north

Amendment No. 0001

Info Page 1 of 2

Questions/Clarifications

Bidders can send written questions or inquiries for clarification to: eflhd.contracts@dot.gov.

Questions can be submitted at any time, but questions submitted within 7 days of the bid opening may not be answered in time for the bidder to properly incorporate the responses into their bids.

The following questions and issues were submitted via email. The Government response or clarification is provided. Due to the repetitive nature of several questions and issues, the wording of the questions may have been revised and some questions have not been included.

The Government’s direct response to the sender may also have been updated below for better clarity.

1. Are the pilings to be steel or wood?

Response: The pilings are to be timber. Furnish pressure treated timber meeting the material requirements noted on sheet R01, steel piles are not an acceptable alternative.

2. Is information on the existing soil conditions available? How deep will the piles be driven?

Response: Additional information can be found in the attached BOCH LA2016-2(1) – Geotechnical Findings and Recommendations Memorandum. The pile embedment length is shown as 12’-0” on sheet R02. Additional information on the installation of Driven Piles can be located in the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-14.

3. Where will the new piles be located?

Response: In accordance with Sheet R02, Note 2, mark the existing pile locations prior to removal and install timber piles at the same location as the existing timber piles.

4. What treatment method will be used on the timber?

Response: In accordance with Sheet R01, pressure treat all timber in accordance with the latest AWPA Standard U1. Provide use category UC5C timber for all piles, headers, and stringers, and use category UC4C for all other timber. Use treatment that does not contain arsenic and/or chromium compounds for UC4C. Use waterborne copper-based solution or suspensions for all timber. Obtain from a single approved source.

5. Will project specific substitutions be considered? i.e. The project plans specify the use of 6-inch x 6-inch square piling, can 8-inch round piling be used? The plans specify #12 screws, can #10 screws be used as an alternative? Dome head bolts are not readily available in stainless steel, can hex-head bolts be used as an alternative?

Response: The Contractor has the option to propose a change to the plan subject to approval of the CO. However, proposed changes will not be considered during mailto:eflhd.contracts@dot.gov

Amendment No. 0001

Info Page 2 of 2 advertisement. Alternative proposals can be submitted to the CO for approval after contract award.