4 - MCT Vista Specs Vol II Roadway.pdf

APRIL 2010

MEXICAN CANYON TRESTLE OVERLOOK

VOLUME II - ROADWAY SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION TO 2007 SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Technical Specifications shall be the New Mexico Department of Transportation 2007 Specifications for Highways and Bridge Construction as hereinafter modified for this project.

Additional guidelines are provided by reference to documentation developed by

- New Mexico Department of Transportation Standards;

- NPDES Permit

- New Mexico Water Quality Act and applicable Clean Water Act

- Air Pollution Control Bureau of the New Mexico Environmental Department

- All Federal and State laws, all local laws, ordinance and regulations of agencies having jurisdiction.

The Technical Specifications for the roadway portion of this project shall consist of the applicable sections and subsections, numbered Section 100 through Section 900, of the above-referenced "2007 Specifications ". The specifications shown below are revisions to the 2007 Specifications.

The following Technical Specifications take precedence over the 2007 Specifications or Plans.

Anything mentioned in the specifications and not shown in the drawings, or shown in the drawings and not mentioned in the Special Provisions, shall be of like effects as if shown or mentioned in both. These Technical Specifications supplements or amend the referenced 2007 Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction adopted by the New Mexico Department of Transportation, which is to be used to control construction of the roadway portion of this Project.

REVISED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Revision of Section 101 - Abbreviations, Symbols, and Definitions Revision of Section 102 - Bidding Requirements and Conditions Revision of Section 103 - Award and Execution of Contract Revision of Section 104 - Scope of Work Revision of Section 105 - Control of Work Revision of Section 106 - Control of Materials Revision of Section 107 - Legal Relations, Environmental Requirements and Responsibility to the Public

Appendix A. Geotechnical Engineering Report; Project No. 68105002 by Terracon Consultants, Inc. dated

February 10, 2010.

B. Addendum 1 to Geotechnical Engineering Report; Project No. 68105002 by Terracon

Consultants, Inc. dated March 1, 2010 C. Addendum 2 to Geotechnical Engineering Report; Project No. 68105002 by Terracon

Consultants, Inc. dated April 12, 2010

APRIL 2010 101-1

MEXICAN CANYON TRESTLE OVERLOOK ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND DIFINITIONS

REVISIONS OF SECTION 101

ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND DEFINITIONS

Section 101 of the 2007 Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction is hereby revised for this project as follows:

Subsection 101.1 - The following terms and definitions shall be included and/or substituted.

"Department" shall include Owner, Forest Service (government), and NMDOT.

"Assistant District Engineer" shall include Contracting Officer (Forest Service).

"Cabinet Secretary or Secretary" shall include the government contracting officer and any delegated representative by Forest Service - (CO).

"Engineer" shall include the government contracting officer or any delegated representative by Forest Service - (CO).

"District Engineer or District Construction Engineer" shall include Contracting Officer (Forest Service).

"State" shall include NMDOT, Forest Service and its representatives.

"Project Manager or Project Engineer" shall include the government contracting officer or any delegated representative by Forest Service - (CO).

APRIL 2010 102-1

MEXICAN CANYON TRESTLE OVERLOOK BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS

REVISIONS OF SECTION 102

BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS

Section 102 of the 2007 Specifications is hereby revised for this project as follows:

Subsection 102.1 through 102.15 shall include all the revisions specified in Revisions of Section 101.

APRIL 2010 103-1

MEXICAN CANYON TRESTLE OVERLOOK AWARD AND EXECUTION OF CONTRACT

REVISIONS OF SECTION 103

AWARD AND EXECUTION OF CONTRACT

Section 103 of the 2007 Specifications is hereby revised for this project as follows:

Subsection 103.1 through 103.3 shall include all the revisions specified in Revisions of Section 101.

APRIL 2010 104-1

MEXICAN CANYON TRESTLE OVERLOOK SCOPE OF WORK

REVISIONS OF SECTION 104

SCOPE OF WORK

Section 104 of the 2007 Specifications is hereby revised for the roadway portion of this project as follows:

Subsection 104.1 shall include the following:

New Mexico State Highway 82, beginning at approximate M.P. 15.31 and proceeding east for 0.38 miles ending at M.P. 15.69, requires realignment, regarding, new pavement and overlay – to create space for a parking lot with associated deceleration and acceleration lanes. The vertically offset parking lot is adjacent to the highway, the center of which is at approximate M.P. 15. The following work elements are included in this project:

• Highway re-alignment and re-grading

• Highway embankment construction and excavation

• Retaining wall for separation of highway and parking lot

• Grading and drainage for proposed parking lot

• New bituminous pavement and overlay of existing highway surface

• New bituminous pavement for parking surface

• ADA accessible pedestrian walkway with railing, along the length of the parking lot

• Guardrail removal and installation

• Highway signing and striping

• Slope stabilizing and re-vegetation

APRIL 2010 105-1

MEXICAN CANYON TRESTLE OVERLOOK CONTROL OF WORK

REVISIONS OF SECTION 105

CONTROL OF WORK

Section 105 of the 2007 Specifications is hereby revised for this project as follows:

Subsection 105.4 shall include the Controlling Terms and Conditions in the Contract.

Subsection 105.8 shall include the following - Refer to Revisions of Section 101 for Abbreviations, Symbols, and Definitions.

Subsection 105.20 Construction Stakes, Lines and Grades:

Construction Work shall not be performed until adequate lines and grade lines have been established by the Contractor.

APRIL 2010 106-1

MEXICAN CANYON TRESTLE OVERLOOK CONTROL OF MATERIALS

REVISIONS OF SECTION 106

CONTROL OF MATERIALS

Section 106 of the 2007 Specifications is hereby revised for this project as follows:

Subsection 106.5 shall include the following:

The following are recommended sampling and testing frequencies:

TABLE 1: SAMPLING AND TESTING FREQUENCIES

COMPACTION TESTING FREQUENCY

Use Troxler with Previously Determined Proctor Properties (Density / Optimum Moisture Content)

Item Task Sampling and Testing Frequency Grading Bulk Grading /

Overloting 1 per 1000 cu yds each lift

Wet Utilities Storm 1 per 100 LF @ every lift Roadway Base Coarse 1 per 250 LF @ every lift (staggered between lanes if more than one lane) Subgrade 1 per 250 LF @ every lift (staggered between lanes if more than one lane) Pavement Asphalt MGPEC Standard Concrete Below Concrete See Structural Concrete Below Dry Utilities Trenching 1 per 500 LF @ every lift

CONCRETE TESTING FREQUENCY

Item Task Sampling and Testing Frequency Non-Structural Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter 1 per 50 cu yds - Slump - Air Content - Temperature - Cylinders

Structural Foundation, Manholes, and Inlets

First 3 trucks - Slump - Air Content - Temp- Cylinders - then 1 per 50 cu yds

APRIL 20101 107-1

MEXICAN CANYON TRESTLE OVERLOOK LEGAL RELATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL

REQUIREMENTS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC

REVISIONS OF SECTION 107

LEGAL RELATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC

Section 107 of the 2007 Specifications is hereby revised for this project as follows:

Subsection 107.1 shall include the following - References to "State" shall include Forest Service, and Owner.

Geotechnical Engineering Report Cloudcroft Trestle Bridge

US Highway 82

Cloudcroft, New Mexico

February 10, 2010

Terracon Project No. 68105002

Prepared for:

JF Sato

Littleton, Colorado

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Las Cruces, New Mexico

Trestle Bridge ■ Cloudcroft, New Mexico February 10, 2010 ■ Terracon Project No. 68105002

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

2.2 Site Location and Description

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile

3.2 Groundwater

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

4.1.1 Drilled Pier Foundation System

4.2 Earthwork

4.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

4.2.2 Fill Materials and Placement

4.2.3 Compaction Requirements

4.2.4 Corrosion Potential

4.3 Foundation Recommendations

4.3.1 Design Recommendations

4.4 Seismic Considerations

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Exhibit No.

Appendix A – Field Exploration

Site Vicinity Map and Boring Location Map ................................................ A1 and A-2

Field Exploration Description ................................................................................. A-3

Boring Logs ............................................................................................. A-4 and A-5

General Notes ....................................................................................................... A-6

Unified Soil Classification System .......................................................................... A-7

Appendix B – Laboratory Testing

Laboratory Test Description ................................................................................... B-1

Laboratory Test Results ........................................................................... B-2 and B-6

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This geotechnical executive summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design and/or construction purposes. It should be recognized that specific details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled General

Comments should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the Cloudcroft Trestle Bridge located adjacent to US Highway 82 approximately one mile west of Cloudcroft, New Mexico.

Terracon’s geotechnical scope of work included the advancement of two test borings to approximate depths of 22 and 8 feet below existing site grades (bgs). Auger refusal was encountered at these depths due to boulders or bedrock.

Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site is suitable for development of the proposed project. The following geotechnical considerations were identified:

Site Soils: The site surface soils generally consisted of well graded gravel with silt and sand, silty gravel with sand and poorly graded gravel with silt and sand. These soils were underlain by boulders or bedrock. Groundwater was not encountered in the test borings at the time of drilling.

Foundations: Deep foundations such as drilled shaft piers may be used to aide in the structural improvements to the bridge. Based on the borings drilled at the site, straight shaft piers are recommended. The drilled shaft piers must extend 5 feet, or one pier diameter, whichever is greater, in the bearing strata.

Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during construction.

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

CLOUDCROFT TRESTLE BRIDGE

US HIGHWAY 82

CLOUDCROFT, NEW MEXICO

Terracon Project No. 68105002 February 10, 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the

Cloudcroft Trestle Bridge located adjacent to US Highway 82 approximately one mile west of

Cloudcroft, New Mexico.

subsurface soil conditions groundwater conditions earthwork foundation design and construction seismic considerations

Our geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included the advancement of two test borings to approximate depths of 22 and 8 feet below existing site grades (bgs).

Auger refusal due to boulders or bedrock was encountered in each boring at these depths.

Logs of the borings along with a Site Vicinity Map and Boring Location Map (Exhibits A-1 and

A-2) are included in Appendix A of this report. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included in Appendix B of this report. Descriptions of the field exploration and laboratory testing are included in their respective appendices.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Site layout Refer to the Site Vicinity Map and Boring Location Map

(Exhibits A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A)

Structure Existing Historic Wood-frame Trestle Bridge

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 2

Structure construction

Structural improvements to the bridge that may include the supporting it on deep foundations connected to the existing bridge supports.

Maximum loads 15.0 kips (assumed)

Maximum allowable settlement 1 inch (assumed)

Maximum allowable differential settlement ½ inch (assumed)

Grading in construction area None

Retaining walls None

Basement level None

2.2 Site Location and Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Location Adjacent to US Highway 82 approximately one mile west of

Cloudcroft, New Mexico

Existing site features Historic Wood-frame Trestle Bridge

Surrounding area

North: US Highway 82

East: Undeveloped

West: Undeveloped

South: Undeveloped

Current ground cover Trees and native grasses.

Existing topography Vertical relief from US Highway 82 to the bottom of the canyon is greater than 50 feet.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile

Specific conditions encountered at the boring locations are indicated on the individual boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs included in Appendix A of this report. Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Description Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum Material Encountered Consistency/Density

Stratum 1 22 feet (Boring B-1), 8 feet (Boring B-2)

Well Graded Gravel with

Silt and Sand, Poorly

Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand, Silty Gravel with Sand

Medium Dense to Very

Dense

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 3

Description Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum Material Encountered Consistency/Density

Stratum 2 Auger Refusal Boulders or Weathered

Bedrock Very Dense

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in Appendix B. Laboratory test results indicate that the surface and near surface soils exhibit low to moderate compressibility potentials at in-situ moisture contents. The soils exhibit a slight tendency for hydro-compaction when elevated in moisture content. The soils did not exhibit expansion under a surcharge loading of 1,000 psf.

3.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in the test borings at the time of field exploration. These observations represent groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations. Groundwater conditions can change with varying seasonal and weather conditions, and other factors.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

The site appears suitable for the proposed structural improvements based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the test borings. Very dense soils and bedrock elevations below foundation areas will require particular attention in the design and construction.

Geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (which are presented in

Appendices A and B), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project.

4.1.1 Drilled Pier Foundation System

The bridge may be supported on a straight shaft drilled pier foundation system. Based on the results of each boring, we have developed the following drilled pier design parameters.

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 4

Boring B-1

Approx

Depth

(feet)

Allowable

Skin

Friction

(psf)

Allowable

End

Bearing

Pressure

(psf)

Allowable

Passive

Resistance

(psf)

Cohesion

(psf)

Internal

Angle of

Friction

(Degrees)

Lateral

Subgrade

Modulus (pci)

0 – 3 Ignore Ignore Ignore Ignore Ignore Ignore

GW-GM

Soils

3 – 15

220 6,000 250 0 42 90

GP-GM

Soils

15 – 22

370 8,000 245 0 45 90

Bedrock

>22 390 30,000 -- 0 -- 225

Boring B-2

Approx

Depth

(feet)

Allowable

Skin

Friction

(psf)

Allowable

End

Bearing

Pressure

(psf)

Allowable

Passive

Resistance

(psf)

Cohesion

(psf)

Internal

Angle of

Friction

(Degrees)

Lateral

Subgrade

Modulus (pci)

0 – 3 Ignore Ignore Ignore Ignore Ignore Ignore

GM Soils

3 – 8 110 5,500 220 0 40 90

Bedrock

>8 175 30,000 -- 0 -- 225

The above-indicated cohesion, friction angle, and lateral subgrade modulus are ultimate values without factors of safety. The end bearing, skin friction, and passive resistance are allowable parameters with a factor of safety of 3. The values given in the above table are based on our borings and past experience with similar soil types. Lateral resistance and friction in the upper 3 feet should be ignored due to the potential affects of frost action, desiccation, and drilling disturbance. The drilled piers must extend 5 feet, or one pier diameter, whichever is greater, into the bearing strata to achieve the full listed capacity.

Piers should be considered to work in group action if the horizontal spacing is less than six pier diameters. A minimum practical horizontal spacing between piers of at least three diameters should be maintained, and adjacent piers should bear at the same elevation. The

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 5 capacity of individual piers must be reduced when considering the effects of group action.

Capacity reduction is a function of pier spacing and the number of piers within a group. If group action analyses are necessary, capacity reduction factors can be provided for the analyses.

Drilling to design depths should be possible with conventional single flight power augers to the reported bedrock depths. Heavy duty equipment will be needed to advance the drilling into the bedrock strata. Temporary casing may be required due to potential sloughing of the subsurface soils. Groundwater (if encountered) should be removed from each pier hole prior to concrete placement. Pier concrete should be placed immediately after completion of drilling and cleaning. If pier concrete cannot be placed in dry conditions, a tremie should be used for concrete placement. Due to potential sloughing and raveling, foundation concrete quantities may exceed calculated geometric volumes.

If concrete will be placed as the temporary casing is being removed, we recommend the concrete mixture be designed with a slump of about 5 to 7 inches to reduce the potential for arching when removing the casing. While removing the casing from a pier excavation during concrete placement, the concrete inside the casing should be maintained at a sufficient level to resist any earth and hydrostatic pressures outside the casing during the entire casing removal procedure.

We recommend that a representative of Terracon be present during drilling activities to evaluate the materials removed from the drilled pier excavations to determine when adequate capacity has been developed, to observe the base of the drilled pier to determine that the cuttings have been adequately removed, and also to observe the concreting techniques.

4.2 Earthwork

The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project (if necessary). The recommendations presented for design and construction of earth supported elements are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section.

Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project.

4.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

Exposed areas which will be constructed upon or receive fill (unless the surface contains large diameter gravel or bedrock), once properly cleared and benched where necessary, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 10 inches, conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted.

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 6

4.2.2 Fill Materials and Placement

All fill materials should be inorganic soils free of vegetation, debris, and fragments larger than six inches in size. Pea gravel or other similar non-cementitious, poorly-graded materials should not be used as fill or backfill without the prior approval of the geotechnical engineer.

Clean on-site soils or approved imported materials may be used as fill material for the following:

general site grading foundation backfill foundation areas

Native and imported soils for use as fill material within the proposed abutment footprints should conform to low volume change materials as indicated in the following specifications:

Percent Finer by Weight

Gradation (ASTM C 136)

6"

3” .................................................................................................... 70-100

No. 4 Sieve ..................................................................................... 50-100

No. 200 Sieve ................................................................................ 50 max

Liquid Limit ....................................................................... 30 (max)

Plasticity Index .................................................................. 15 (max)

Maximum expansive potential (%)* ............................................ 1.0

*Measured on a sample compacted to approximately 95 percent of the ASTM D698 maximum dry density at about 3 percent below optimum water content. The sample is confined under a 100 psf surcharge and submerged/inundated.

Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift. Fill lifts should not exceed ten inches loose thickness.

4.2.3 Compaction Requirements

Recommended compaction and moisture content criteria for engineered fill materials are as follows:

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 7

Material Type and Location

Per the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D 1557)

Minimum

Compaction

Requirement (%)

Range of Moisture Contents for

Compaction

Minimum Maximum

Approved on-site or approved imported fill soils:

Beneath foundations (pier caps): 95 -2% +2%

Miscellaneous backfill 95 -2% +2%

4.2.4 Corrosion Potential

Results of soluble sulfate, chloride content, pH, and resistivity testing from the general area indicate that the site should have a low corrosion potential to reinforcing steel and buried metal structures. However, if metal structures are to be used, the corrosion potential should be analyzed by the manufacturer and appropriate protection provided. Soluble sulfate testing in the general area indicates that ASTM Type I/II Portland cement is suitable for concrete on and below grade. Foundation concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4.

4.3 Foundation Recommendations

The trestle bridge can be supported by drilled pier foundations. Design recommendations for foundations and related structural elements are presented in the following paragraphs.

4.3.1 Design Recommendations

DESCRIPTION VALUE

Foundation Type Drilled Pier Foundation System

Structures Structural improvements to the existing wood-frame trestle bridge.

Bearing Material Drilled piers founded at minimum of 5 feet into the bearing strata.

Allowable Bearing Pressure See pier capacities (Section 4.2)

Minimum Dimensions 30-inch diameter

Minimum Embedment Depth

Below Finished Grade 24 inches for pier caps

Total Estimated Movement 1 inch

Estimated Differential Movement ½ inch

Pier caps should be placed a minimum of 24 inches below finished grade to provide confinement for the bearing soils and frost protection. Finished grade is the lowest adjacent grade for perimeter foundations.

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 8

4.4 Seismic Considerations

We have provided seismic design parameters according to the 2006 International Building

Code (IBC) for design and construction of the proposed structure. Selected site ground motion parameters for the project have been determined in general accordance with the

IBC. The values provided are based on the subsurface exploration presented herein and the USGS software for use in interpolating values.

CONTERMINOUS 48 STATES-2003 NEHRP SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS

LATITUDE: 32.958 LONGITUDE: -105.744

Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1 SMs = FaSs and SM1 = FvS1

Site Class C - Fa = 1.2, Fv = 1.7

Period (sec) Sa (g)

0.2 0.359 (SMs, Site Class C)

1.0 0.155 (SM1, Site Class C)

SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SD1 = 2/3 x SM1

Site Class C - Fa = 1.2 ,Fv = 1.7

Period (sec) Sa (g)

0.2 0.240 (SDs, Site Class C)

1.0 0.103 (SD1, Site Class C)

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative 9 concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

SITE VICINITY MAP

Project Mngr:

JDC

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

DB

MEW

MEW

Project No.

68105002

Scale

File No.

Date:

As Shown

Site Vicinity

1/28/10

1640 Hickory Loop, Suite 105

Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005

575.527.1700 Fax: 575.527.1092

FIG No.

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS

NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.

Source: http://terraserver-usa.com/ USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map “Cloudcroft, New Mexico, United States 7/1/1979”

N

Project Vicinity

US-82

http://terraserver-usa.com/

BORING LOCATION MAP

Project Mngr:

JDC

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

DB

MEW

MEW

Project No.

68105002

Scale

File No.

Date:

Not to Scale

Boring Location

1/28/10

1640 Hickory Loop, Suite 105

Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005

575.527.1700 Fax: 575.527.1092

FIG No.

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS

NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.

Approximate Boring Location

Source: J.F. Sato and Associates.

B-2

N

B-1

Exhibit A-3

Field Exploration Description

A total of two test borings were drilled at the site on January 27, 2010. The borings were drilled to approximate depths of 22 and 8 feet below the ground surface at the approximate locations shown on the attached Boring Location Map, Exhibit A-2. Auger refusal was encountered in each boring due to boulders or bedrock at this depth. The test borings were located as follows:

Borings Location Depths (feet)

B-1 Adjacent to US Highway 82 22

B-2 Adjacent to US Highway 82 8

The test borings were advanced with a truck-mounted CME-75 drill rig utilizing 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers.

The borings were located in the field by using the proposed site plan and an aerial photograph of the site, and measuring from existing property lines. The accuracy of boring locations should only be assumed to the level implied by the method used.

Lithologic logs of the borings were recorded by the field geologist during the drilling operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by driving split-spoon or ring-barrel samplers. Bulk samples of subsurface materials were also obtained.

Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the split-spoon and ring-barrel samplers into the subsurface materials with a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The penetration resistance value is a useful index in estimating the consistency or relative density of materials encountered.

A CME automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings performed on this site. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report.

Groundwater conditions were evaluated in the borings at the time of site exploration.

- #200 = 7.0%

NP

- #200 = 10.9%

LL = 18

PI = 3

WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT

AND SAND; Brown, medium dense, cobbles encountered, dry.

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT

AND SAND; Brown, medium dense, dry.

Very dense.

Auger refusal at 22 feet due to bedrock or large cobbles. No free water encountered at time of drilling.

SS

RS

SS

SS

SS

GW

GM

GW

GM

GW

GM

GP

GM

GP

GM

50(3")

4.6

2.9

2.4

DESCRIPTION

TESTS

Approx. Surface Elev.: 8438 ft

CLOUDCROFT TRESTLE BRIDGE

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines

SITE

BORING STARTED

CME-75

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED MEW

DBFOREMANRIG

1-27-10

68105002

JF SATO AND ASSOC.

CLIENT

LOG OF BORING NO. B-1

JOB #

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual.

PROJECT

1-27-10

Boring Location: NORTH SIDE OF HWY

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft

US HIGHWAY 82

CLOUDCROFT, NEW MEXICO

SAMPLES

U S

C S

S Y

M B

O L

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

D E

P T

H ft

R E

C O

V E

R Y in

S P

T

N B

L O

W S f t.

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T p c f

B O

R E

H O

L E

-C L

O U

D C

R O

F T

T R

E S

T L

E B

R

ID

G E

.G P

J

T E

R R

A C

O N

.G D

/1

- #200 = 20.2%

LL = 18

PI = 25

SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND; Brown, medium dense, cobbles encountered, dry.

Very dense.

Auger refusal at 8 feet due to bedrock or large cobbles. No free water encountered at time of drilling.

SS

RS

GM

GM

50(5")

4.6

2.2

12 112

DESCRIPTION

TESTS

Approx. Surface Elev.: 8445 ft

CLOUDCROFT TRESTLE BRIDGE

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines

SITE

BORING STARTED

CME-75

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED

APPROVED MEW

DBFOREMANRIG

1-27-10

68105002

JF SATO AND ASSOC.

CLIENT

LOG OF BORING NO. B-2

JOB #

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual.

PROJECT

1-27-10

Boring Location: SOUTH SIDE OF HWY

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft

US HIGHWAY 82

CLOUDCROFT, NEW MEXICO

SAMPLES

U S

C S

S Y

M B

O L

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

D E

P T

H ft

R E

C O

V E

R Y in

S P

T

N B

L O

W S f t.

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T p c f

B O

R E

H O

L E

-C L

O U

D C

R O

F T

T R

E S

T L

E B

R

ID

G E

.G P

J

R R

A C

O N

.G D

GENERAL NOTES

DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:

SS: Split Spoon - 1-3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger ST: Thin-Walled Tube - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: Wash Boring or Mud Rotary

The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the “Standard Penetration” or “N-value”. For 3” O.D. ring samplers (RS) the penetration value is reported as the number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, reported as “blows per foot,” and is not considered equivalent to the “Standard Penetration”or “N-value”.

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:

WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling N/E: Not Encountered WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB: After Boring ACR: After Casing Removal

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations.

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Unconfined

Compressive Strength, Qu, psf

Standard Penetration or N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft.

Consistency

Standard Penetration or N-value (SS)

Ring Sampler (RS)

Relative Density < 500 0 - 1 Very Soft 0 – 3 0-6 Very Loose 500 – 1,000 2 - 4 Soft 4 – 9 7-18 Loose 1,000 – 2,000 4 - 8 Medium Stiff 10 – 29 19-58 Medium Dense 2,000 – 4,000 8 -15 Stiff 30 – 49 59-98 Dense 4,000 – 8,000 15 - 30 Very Stiff > 50 > 99 Very Dense 8,000+ > 30 Hard

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents Percent of Dry Weight

Major Component of Sample

Particle Size

Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm) With 15 – 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75 mm)

Modifier > 30 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES

Sand

Silt or Clay #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm)

Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents

Percent of Dry Weight

Term Plasticity Index

Trace With

Modifiers

< 5 5 – 12 > 12

Non-plastic

Low Medium

High

1-10 11-30 > 30

Form 111—6/98

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification

Group Symbol

Group NameB

Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3E GW Well-graded gravelF Clean Gravels Less than 5% finesC Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E GP Poorly graded gravelF

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF,G, H

Coarse Grained Soils

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Gravels with Fines More than 12% finesC Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF,G,H

Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3E SW Well-graded sandI Clean Sands Less than 5% finesD Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E SP Poorly graded sandI

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG,H,I

Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Sands with Fines

More than 12% finesD Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG,H,I

PI > 7 and plots on or above “A” lineJ CL Lean clayK,L,M Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50 inorganic

PI < 4 or plots below “A” lineJ ML SiltK,L,M

Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clayK,L,M,N

Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve organic

Liquid limit - not dried

< 0.75 OL

Organic siltK,L,M,O inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayK,L,M

Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic SiltK,L,M

Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clayK,L,M,P organic

Liquid limit - not dried

< 0.75 OH

Organic siltK,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C 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.

D Sands 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

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

DxD )(D

F If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

HIf fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

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

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded 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 group name.

M If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to 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.

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1

Laboratory Testing

Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for further observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Appendix A. At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials.

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in this appendix. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards.

Selected soil samples obtained from the site were tested for the following engineering properties:

Atterberg Limits In-situ Water Content

Sieve Analysis Consolidation

Dry Unit Weight

Sieve Size 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #200

% Passing (Cumulative) 100% 60% 46% 33% 23% 12% 8% 7.0%

Specification

% GRAVEL = 67% D85 = 30.2 D15 = 0.7

% SAND = 26% D60 = 19.2 D10 = 0.3

% SILT & CLAY = 7% D50 = 11.4 CU = 73.3

D30 = 3.6 CC = 2.6

Sample Date:

Project No.: 68105002

Project Name: Cloudcroft Trestle Bridge

Report Date:

Sample Location: B1 at 2.5'

Liquid Limit: NV NP

USCS Classification: GW-GM

Material Description: Well Graded Gravel with Silt & Sand

Reviewed By:

Dan Cosper, P.E.

TEST SUMMARY

(575) 527-1700

TERRACON

1640 Hickory Loop, Suite 105

Las Cruces, NM 88005

Plasticity Index:

GRAIN SIZE - mm

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.11101001000

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

R i n

.5 in

% Passing (Cumulative) 100% 73% 56% 42% 29% 17% 13% 10.9%

Specification

% GRAVEL = 58% D85 = 24.6 D15 = 0.3

% SAND = 31% D60 = 10.8 D10 = 0.1

% SILT & CLAY = 11% D50 = 7.0 CU = 108.5

D30 = 2.2 CC = 4.3

Sample Date:

Project No.: 68105002

Project Name: Cloudcroft Trestle Bridge

Report Date:

Sample Location: B1 at 15'

Liquid Limit: 18 3

USCS Classification: GP-GM

Material Description: Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt & Sand

Reviewed By:

Dan Cosper, P.E.

TEST SUMMARY

(575) 527-1700

TERRACON

1640 Hickory Loop, Suite 105

Las Cruces, NM 88005

Plasticity Index:

GRAIN SIZE - mm

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.11101001000

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

% Passing (Cumulative) 100% 85% 59% 50% 40% 28% 23% 20.2%

Specification

% GRAVEL = 50% D85 = 19.0 D15 =

% SAND = 30% D60 = 9.9 D10 =

% SILT & CLAY = 20% D50 = 4.7 CU =

D30 = 0.6 CC =

Sample Date:

Project No.: 68105002

Project Name: Cloudcroft Trestle Bridge

Report Date:

Sample Location: B2 at 2.5'

Liquid Limit: 18 2

USCS Classification: GM

Material Description: Silty Gravel with Sand

Reviewed By:

Dan Cosper, P.E.

TEST SUMMARY

(575) 527-1700

TERRACON

1640 Hickory Loop, Suite 105

Las Cruces, NM 88005

Plasticity Index:

GRAIN SIZE - mm

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.11101001000

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

CLOUDCROFT, NEW MEXICO TERRACON

1640 Hickory Loop, Suite 105

LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88005

(575) 527-1700 fax (575) 527-1092

DRY DENSITY = 116 lbs/ft

MOISTURE CONTENT = 2.9%

WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND

BORING B-1 @ 5'

USCS Classification:

GW-GM

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

10 100 1000 10000

P E

R C

E N

T C

O N

S O

L

ID

A T

IO

N

S

W E

L

STRESS POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT

SWELL/CONSOLIDATION CHART

water added

CONSOL-B-1@ 5'.xls PROJECT NO. 68105002

CLOUDCROFT, NEW MEXICO TERRACON

1640 Hickory Loop, Suite 105

LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88005

(575) 527-1700 fax (575) 527-1092

DRY DENSITY = 112 lbs/ft

MOISTURE CONTENT = 2.2%

SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND

BORING B-2 @ 5'

USCS Classification:

GM

-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1

10 100 1000 10000

P E

R C

E N

T C

O N

S O

L

ID

A T

IO

N

S

W E

STRESS POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT

SWELL/CONSOLIDATION CHART

water added

CONSOL-B-2@ 5'.xls PROJECT NO. 68105002