Attachment 11 Subsurface Investigation Report 260429.pdf

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

REPORT

For The

Williams River Bridge Replacement Project Monongahela National Forest, Marlinton-White Sulphur Ranger

District, Pocahontas County West Virginia

Prepared For:

U.P. Engineers & Architects, Inc.

100 Portage Street Houghton, MI 49931

Prepared By:

GeoTech Engineering, Inc.

4031 Allport Cutoff Morrisdale, PA 16858

November 9, 2021

Williams River Bridge Replacement Subsurface Investigation Report i GeoTech Engineering, Inc.

Table of Contents

1.0 PROJECT OVERIEW _____________________________________________________________ 1

1.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________1

1.2 Project Description ___________________________________________________________________1

1.3 Project Purpose _____________________________________________________________________1

2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ____________________________________________________ 1

2.1 Drilling and Sampling Procedures _______________________________________________________1

2.2 Laboratory Procedures ________________________________________________________________2

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ______________________________________________________ 2

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS __________________________________________ 3

4.1 Site Preparation _____________________________________________________________________3

4.2 Excavation Considerations _____________________________________________________________3

4.3 Structural Fill _______________________________________________________________________4

4.4 Driven Timber Pile Foundations ________________________________________________________5

4.5 Lateral Loads ________________________________________________________________________5

4.6 Road Restoration ____________________________________________________________________6

5.0 Limitations of Study ____________________________________________________________ 7

APPENDICES:

Appendix A Project Location Maps

Appendix B General Terms and Symbols

Appendix C Test Boring Logs

Subsurface Investigation Report 1 GeoTech Engineering, Inc.

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR THE

WILLIAMS RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT

MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST, MARLINTON-WHITE SULPHUR RANGER

DISTRICT, POCAHONTAS COUNTY WEST VIRGINIA

1.0 PROJECT OVERIEW

1.1 Introduction

GeoTech Engineering, Inc. (GEI) was subcontracted by U.P. Engineers & Architects, Inc.

(UPEA) to perform a subsurface investigation for the Williams River Bridge Replacement Project. The Williams River Bridge is the sole access point for Tea Creek Campground over the Williams River. The Williams River Bridge is located along Forest Road 86, Williams River Road north of State Route 150, Highland Scenic Highway. Coordinates of the bridge center are N38.3408°, W80.2326° (see Project Location Maps in Appendix A). The following includes a brief review of our understanding of the scope of the project along with a description of the conditions encountered during the investigation.

1.2 Project Description

The existing structure is a 111-ft, multi-span reinforced concrete bridge with concrete abutments. The current structure is regularly topped by high water events. The existing structure is proposed to be replaced with a multi-span structure and may require realignment or relocation due to a tight approach from Forest Road 86. Bridge loads were not provided at the time of this report.

1.3 Project Purpose

This investigation included drilling a total of 2 test borings to determine the nature and consistency of the subsurface soils and bedrock at the site. The encountered subsurface conditions were used to provide soil and rock strength parameters for foundation and construction recommendations.

2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

2.1 Drilling and Sampling Procedures

Two test borings, designated B-1 and B-2 were advanced at the locations indicated on the “Boring Location Plan” in Appendix A. Both borings were advanced by using hollow stem auger and rotary coring methods. A Mobile B-57 track mounted drill rig equipped with a Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) automatic hammer was utilized to perform the borings.

Continuous split-spoon sampling was performed at each boring location from 0-ft to 12-ft and every 5-ft thereafter until refusal was encountered. The SPT was conducted using a 140-pound (lb) hammer falling 30-inches (in) to drive a 2-in outside diameter (OD) split-spoon sampler as in accordance with ASTM D 1586-11. The driving resistance is recorded on the boring logs in terms of blows per 6-in interval of driving distance. The second and third intervals are added to obtain the number of blows per foot (bpf) or the 'N' values, which are also shown on the boring logs. All borings were backfilled with cuttings at termination. Where

Subsurface Investigation Report 2 GeoTech Engineering, Inc.

weathered rock or extremely hard soil is encountered and the penetration of the split-barrel is less than 6-in after 50 blows, the results are reported as the actual depth of penetration achieved for 50 blows. The SPT blow count aids in determining soil characteristics such as unit weights, bearing capacities and settlement potential.

Groundwater was encountered in B-1 at a depth of 5.0-ft immediately after the completion of coring and at a depth of 4.0-ft after 24-hrs. The rise in the groundwater elevation was likely due to overnight rains that increased the water level in the adjacent Williams River. Groundwater was encountered in B-2 at a depth of 3.5-ft immediately after coring. Boring B-2 was backfilled upon completion and only a 0-hour (upon completion) reading was taken. The groundwater elevation should be assumed to be at or above river height. Seasonal and wet weather fluctuations of the groundwater elevation should be anticipated.

To verify bedrock, rock coring was performed at all borings upon reaching sample refusal.

Boring B-1, was advanced with augering and SPT sampling to 25.0-ft prior to coring to 35.2-ft.

Boring B-2 was advanced with augering and SPT sampling to 5.6-ft prior to coring to 15.2-ft.

Rock coring was performed using the rotary drilling method with an NQ double-walled core barrel with a diamond impregnated bit. Rock coring was generally performed in 5-ft runs. Rock Core Recovery (REC) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) were recorded per run. RQD is an estimated rock quality based upon the percentage of intact rock recovered from a core run greater than 4-in. See Table 1 below for test boring summary and Appendix C for boring logs.

Table 1: Test Boring Summary Boring

Number Ground

Elevation (feet)

Boring Depth (feet)

*GW Depth (feet)

B-1 2971.5 35.2 5.0/4.0

B-2 2965.4 15.2 3.5/NA

*0-hr groundwater reading taken immediately after the completion of coring/24-hr groundwater reading.

2.2 Laboratory Procedures

All soil and rock samples were visually examined in the field. Soil samples collected were sealed in glass containers and reviewed by a GEI staff engineer at our Morrisdale Office. Rock core samples were collected and stored in wooden core boxes. Samples were visual classified in accordance with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Publication 222, April 2018.

Due to subsurface conditions, GEI concluded that laboratory testing of soil or rock samples would not be necessary.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Interpreted boring logs (Appendix C) have been prepared from the driller's log and our visual examination. The following is an interpretation of all the analyzed data. The subsurface conditions encountered at the site were consistent with the geology of the area.

Subsurface Investigation Report 3 GeoTech Engineering, Inc.

The profile at B-1 consisted of 2.0-ft layer of surficial topsoil and silt underlain by sand and course gravel deposits to 25.7-ft. The sand and course gravel deposits were underlaid by weathered tan gray sandstone to 35.2-ft bgs. The weathered tan gray sandstone was hard and weathered at depth with an RQD of 52% from 30.7-ft to 35.2-ft.

The profile at B-2 consists of roadway shoulder gravel, silt, sand and sandstone gravel to 5.7-ft bgs underlaid by gray sandstone with shale streaks to a depth of 15.2-ft bgs. The gray sandstone with shale streaks was hard and lightly weathered at depth with an RQD of 100% from 10.2-ft to15.2-ft.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The data obtained from the drilling has been used to determine the engineering properties of the soil and rock encountered at the subject site. These properties have been used to develop the design recommendations as discussed in the following paragraphs.

4.1 Site Preparation

In addition of removal of the existing bridge superstructure, abutments and foundations, all necessary clearing and grubbing shall be completed. This includes, but is not limited to, all existing pavement sections, construction or miscellaneous debris, topsoil, organic material (vegetation, root systems, etc.). After the removal of unsuitable materials, areas that are at or near final grades (prior to stone placement) and/or areas that require fill to reach final grade should be proof rolled. Repair will be required for any soils determined to rut or pump during proof roll operations. Repair options include undercutting to stable materials and replacing with approved structural fill, geotextile placement, or replacement with aggregate base course stone.

Excavated materials are suitable for structural fill as long as they meet the requirements of the structural fill section of this report. Repair measures should be determined during field operations to best suit the characteristics of the failed subgrade soils. Repair options other than removal and replacement with structural fill should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer on record. Fill slopes at this site of 2-ft horizontal:1-ft vertical or flatter will be stable as long as the slopes are vegetated as soon as grading is complete, in order to prevent erosion.

As previously stated, groundwater is expected to be encountered at or above the elevation of the Williams River. The contractor is responsible for dewatering methods such as surface/gravity drainage and/or sump pumps. Dewatering operations should be maintained continuously until all construction activities have taken place. Additional considerations may be required pending construction activities.

4.2 Excavation Considerations

The majority of the existing embankment material encountered within the borings is considered suitable for reuse as new embankment fill, however; material with high moisture contents will be deemed unsuitable and will need to be properly dried and material with low strengths will need to be over-excavated and replaced with structural fill.

If encountered, near surface clays and silts are sensitive to heavy equipment, especially during periods of heavy rainfall. Extra care should be taken in order to prevent deterioration of the

Subsurface Investigation Report 4 GeoTech Engineering, Inc.

existing subgrade soils which may require repair measures. Structural fill should not be placed during rain events. Prior to the end of each day/shift, the final lift should be graded to allow for drainage and then should be rolled with a smooth drum roller to help deter saturation of the clay/silt. If the lift becomes saturated, no fill shall be placed until the moisture content of the material is brought back to within specifications. If the surface of a lift becomes saturated it will need to be removed and a construction inspector will need verify that the material below the saturated material stable. If the work takes place during the winter weather conditions, precautions should be taken to ensure that no frozen material is used as fill and no fill is placed over any frozen subgrade.

If excavations deeper than 4-ft are required, temporary protective systems will be required. The guidelines presented below are outlined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and should not be used as the sole safety measure for site excavations. OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926 provides excavations safety standards, but any local or state regulations should also be adhered to. OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926 dictates that trenches deeper than 4-ft should be sloped, benched, or shielded. Any excavation deeper than 20-ft is required to be designed by a professional engineer (PE). Actual temporary excavation protection systems should be field verified by qualified personnel at the time of excavation in strict accordance with OSHA guidelines Allowable slopes and soil classifications per OSHA are shown below in Table 2:

Table 2: Temporary Excavation of Slopes (OSHA)

Soil Type OSHA Soil Max Slope Classification Inclination

Clay Type A ¾ (H) : 1 (V) Silt Type B 1 (H) : 1 (V)

Sand Type C 1.5 (H) : 1 (V)

4.3 Structural Fill

Generally, materials utilized for structural fill should be free of waste, construction debris, organic material and other deleterious materials and meet the following requirements:

Maximum Dry Density per ASTM D698 > 110-pcf Liquid Limit < 50 Plasticity Index < 20 Organic Matter < 3% Maximum Particle Size < 4-in Fines Content (between 0.075 and 0.005 mm) < 45%

We note the majority of the existing onsite soils will meet these criteria. The fill should also be placed in maximum 9-in thick horizontal loose lifts and be compacted to at least 95% of the materials maximum dry density as determined by a standard Proctor (ASTM D-698).

At the time of placement, the moisture content of the fill should be within ± 3% of the material’s optimum moisture content. Based upon the typical optimum moisture content of soils similar to those at this site, drying or wetting of soils should be expected. Modifying the soils content may

Subsurface Investigation Report 5 GeoTech Engineering, Inc.

be achieved by adding lime or blending material of higher moisture content with material of lower moisture content. The amount of drying or wetting will be dependent on environmental factors such as temperature and precipitation.

4.4 Foundations

Based upon the subsurface conditions, two different abutment foundation types are recommended. The south abutment is recommended to be a shallow spread footing bearing on shallow competent bedrock and the northern abutment is recommended to be founded on grouted micropiles. If shallow foundations are required in addition to the two abutments, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf is recommended for foundations residing on native soil or well compacted structural fill.

If midspan piers are determined to be required, grouted micropiles with a pile cap are recommended. However, an accurate determination of the bearing conditions and bearing depth at any midspan location can not be determined without additional investigation due to the significant difference in bearing strata and depths between the two investigated abutment locations.

Due to the presence of shallow sandstone with shale streaks bedrock on the southern abutment (5.7-ft below existing grade) the southern abutment is recommended to be founded on shallow spread footings cast-in-place directly on shallow competent bedrock. A minimum bearing depth of 8.0-ft below existing grade is recommended.

Due to the presence of extensive sand, gravel and boulder deposits on the southern abutment location, the southern abutment should be founded on grouted micropiles advanced through the sand, gravel and boulder deposits to an anticipated depth of 27.0-ft below existing grades. Piles driven to this depth are anticipated to reside on hard sandstone bedrock.

The allowable bearing capacity of the hard sandstone bedrock encountered at 26-ft below the existing ground surface at B-1 is estimated to be 30 ksf. The allowable bearing capacity of the hard sandstone with shale streaks bedrock encountered at 5.7-ft below the existing ground surface at B-2 is estimated to be 30 ksf. Due to the non-homogenous and inconsistent nature of the alluvial sand, gravel and boulder deposits encountered at B-1 from 2.0-ft to 26-ft on the northern abutment, the effects from pile skin friction within the alluvial sand, gravel and boulder deposit should be ignored for design purposes. A nominal grout-to-ground bond value 100 psi is recommended for grouted micopiles residing within the hard sandstone bedrock on the northern abutment. If the proposed total depths of the grouted micropiles exceeds the sampled rock core length, additional provisions should be made during construction to verify the rock bearing conditions. Riprap or gabion baskets should be utilized to protect pile caps, embankments and abutments from scour.

4.5 Lateral Loads

Abutments walls, wingwalls, temporary cofferdams and temporary shoring shall be designed to resist lateral loads from soil backfill. The following parameters for the existing site soils should be used for design: moist unit weight = 120 pcf and friction angle = 30°.

Subsurface Investigation Report 6 GeoTech Engineering, Inc.

Abutment walls and wingwalls shall be designed to resist live load surcharges from vehicles. Live load surcharges shall be selected in accordance with AASHTO LFRD Bridge Design Specifications, 3.11.6.4. According to AASHTO LFRD Bridge Design Specifications, a live load surcharge shall be applied where the vehicle load is expected to act on the surface of the backfill within a distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the back face of the wall.

Abutment walls and wingwalls should have a minimum 4-in perforated drains installed directly behind and along the entire length of the wall structure. The drain should be placed above the water table; incorporate positive drainage towards Red Run; be covered with a minimum of 2-ft of AASHTO NO.57 (or equivalent) drainage stone; and be wrapped by a non-woven geotextile filter fabric manufacture specifically for drainage applications.

4.6 Road Restoration

Roadway subgrades should be compacted to a minimum of 98% the materials maximum dry density as determined by a standard Proctor (ASTM D-698). Road surfaces or asphalt subbase shall consist of 6-in (minimum) of a well graded aggregate or equivalent engineered fill compacted to a minimum of 95% the materials maximum dry density as determined by a modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557). If required, asphalt pavement should be placed over the prepared subbase and consists of 3.0-in of 19 mm or 25 mm superpave base course topped with 1.5-in of

9.5 mm wearing coarse. Asphalt layers should be compacted to at least 92% the theoretical maximum density.

Subsurface Investigation Report 7 GeoTech Engineering, Inc.

5.0 Limitations of Study

Our recommendations for this project were developed utilizing soil and rock information obtained from the test borings at the proposed site. The test borings only depict the subsurface conditions at the specified locations and time at which they were made. The subsurface conditions at other locations on the site may differ from those occurring at the boring locations. The conclusions and recommendations herein have been based upon the available soil information and the preliminary design details furnished to us. If deviations from the noted subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, they should be brought to our attention immediately. The scope of our services does not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond the site studied. Any statements in this report or on the test boring logs regarding odors, staining of soils, or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of our client.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. GeoTech Engineering, Inc is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations made by others based upon the data included herein.

Project Location Maps

Appendix A

SCALE: 1 INCH = 3,000 FEET

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

WILLIAMS RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT

Pocahontas County, West Virginia

PROJECT LOCATION

SOURCE:

U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE:

WOODROW, WV

EXISTING

BRIDGE

W i l l i a m s

R i v e r

B-1

B-2

SCALE: 1 INCH = 50 FEET

BORING LOCATION MAP (AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH)

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

Pocahontas County, West Virginia

EXISTING

BRIDGE

W i l l i a m s

R i v e r

B-1

B-2

SCALE: 1 INCH = 50 FEET

BORING LOCATION MAP (TOPOGRAPHIC MAP)

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

Pocahontas County, West Virginia

General Terms and Symbols

Appendix B

GENERAL SYMBOLS & TERMS

SAMPLING SYMBOLS

SS: Split-Spoon 1-3/8” I.D. 2.0” O.D.

AU: Auger Sample

BG: Bulk Sample

ST: Shelby Tube - 3.0” O.D.

RC: Rock Core

SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS

MC: Moisture Content

LL: Liquid Limit, %

PI: Plasticity index, %

: Groundwater encountered

WOH: Weight of Hammer

WOR: Weight of Rod

RELATIVE CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS

Description Standard Penetration Unconfined Comp. Strength, tsf*

Very Soft 0-2 < 0.25

Soft 3-4 0.25 -0.50

Firm 5-9 0.50 – 1.0

Stiff 10-15 1.0 – 2.0

Very Stiff 16-30 2.0 – 4.0

Hard 31-50 4.0+

Very Hard 51-99 4.0+

Weathered Rock 50/6”+ 4.0+

RELATIVE DENSITY OF NON-COHESIVE SOILS

Description Standard Penetration

Very Loose 0 - 5

Loose 6- 10

Medium Dense 11 - 30

Dense 31 - 50

Very Dense 51+

Weathered Rock 50/6”+

PERCENTAGE OF OTHER COMPONTENTS PARTICLE SIZE

Description Percent Description Size

Trace 0 - 10 Boulders 12.0 in +

Little 10-20 Cobbles 3.0 in. - 12.0 in. +

Some 20-35 Gravel < 3.0 in.

And 35 -50 Coarse Sand 5mm - 0.6mm

Medium Sand 0.6mm - 0.2mm

Fine Sand 0.2mm - 0.74mm

Silt 0.074mm - 0.005mm

Clay -0.005mm

Soil samples are identified using The PennDOT Classification System unless otherwise noted.

STANDARD ROCK COLORS STANDARD ROCK COLOR MODIFIERS

Color Abbreviation Description Abbreviation

Black Bk Light Lt

Brown Bn Dark Dk

Gray Ga Mottled Mt

Red Rd Banded Bd

Purple Pr

Orange Or

Olive Ol

Green Gn

Pink Pk

Yellow Yl

STANDARD ROCK TYPES

Rock Type Abbreviation Rock Origin Graphic Symbol

Amphibolite Am Metamorphic Metamorphic

Anorthosite An Igneous Igneous

Anthracite Coal Co-A Sedimentary Coal

Argillite Ar Sedimentary Argillite

Bituminous Concrete BC Man Made Asphalt Concrete

Basalt/Metabasalt Ba Igneous Igneous

Bituminous Coal Co-B Sedimentary Coal

Breccia Br Sedimentary Conglomerate

Cement Concrete CC Man Made Cement Concrete

Chert Ch Sedimentary Sedimentary – Other

Claystone Cl Sedimentary Claystone

Coal Co Sedimentary Coal

Conglomerate Cn Sedimentary Conglomerate

Diabase (Gabbro) Di Igneous Igneous

Dolomite Do Sedimentary Limestone

Flint Clay FlC Sedimentary Sedimentary – Other

Gabbro Ga Igneous Igneous

Gneiss Gn Metamorphic Metamorphic

Granite/Granodiorite Gr Igneous Igneous

Hornfels Hr Metamorphic Metamorphic

Limestone Lm Sedimentary Limestone

Marble Mr Metamorphic Metamorphic

Masonry MA Man Made Cement Concrete

Orthoquartzite (Sandstone) Or Sedimentary Sandstone

Pegmatite Pg Igneous Igneous

Phyllite Ph Metamorphic Metamorphic

Quartzite Qr Metamorphic Metamorphic

Rhyolite/Metarhyolite Rh Igneous Igneous

Sandstone Sa Sedimentary Sandstone

Schist Sch Metamorphic Metamorphic

Serpentite Sr Metamorphic Metamorphic

Shale Sh Sedimentary Shale

Siltstone Si Sedimentary Siltstone

Slate Sl Metamorphic Metamorphic

Unsampled Uns N/A Unsampled

Void Vd N/A Void

STANDARD ROCK HARDNESS

Descriptor Test Criteria Typical PA Rock Type

Very Soft (Vs) Scratched by a wood dowel or fingernail Gypsum, evaporates, some shale

Soft (Sf) Scratched by rubbing against the surface of a copper pipe of fitting, but not scratched by a wood dowel or fingernail

Schist, shale, most limestone

Medium Hard (Mh) Scratched by rubbing against the surface of a common steel nail, but not scratched by rubbing against the surface of a copper pipe or fitting

Siltstone, sandstone, some limestone

Hard (Hd) Scratched by rubbing against a hardened steel file, but not scratched by rubbing against the surface of a copper pipe or fitting

Some sandstone, chert, granite, gneiss

Very Hard (Vh) Not scratched by rubbing against a hardened steel file

Some hornfels

STANDARD ROCKWEATHERING

Descriptor Criteria

Fresh (Fw) No visible decomposition, discoloration, or oxidation

Slightly Weathered (Sw) Slight decomposition, discoloration, or oxidation impacting < 20% of the rock mass

Weathered (Ww) Significant decomposition, discoloration, or oxidation impacting 20 to 40% of the rock mass. Weaker minerals decomposed. Apparent strength less than fresh parent rock.

Moderately Weathered (Mw) Moderate decomposition, discoloration, or oxidation impacting 40 to 60% of the rock mass. Noticeable loss of strength relative to fresh parent rock.

Highly Weathered (Hw) Major decomposition, discoloration, or oxidation impacting > 60% of the rock mass. Rock is significantly weakened relative to its un-weathered state.

Less weathered components may be present in rock mass.

BEDDING THICKNESS AND DIP

Bedding Thickness Description

Indistinct Bedding (Inb) Bedding structure not clearly defined

Laminated Bedding (Lmb) Bedding thickness < ¼ inch

Thin Bedding (Tnb) Bedding thickness ¼ to 1 inch

Narrow Bedding (Nrb) Bedding thickness 1 to 3 inches

Moderate Bedding (Mob) Bedding thickness 3 to 9 inches

Medium Bedding (Meb) Bedding thickness 9 to 24 inches

Thick Bedding (Tkb) Bedding thickness 2 to 6 feet

Massive Bedding (Mab) Bedding thickness > 6 feet

Bedding/Discontinuity Dip Description

Flat Dip (Fld) Beds/Discontinuities dipping < 5 degrees

Shallow Dip (Sld) Beds/Discontinuities dipping from 5 to 15 degrees

Moderate Dip (Mdd) Beds/Discontinuities dipping from 15 to 30 degrees

Steep Dip (Std) Beds/Discontinuities dipping from 30 to 45 degrees

Very Steep Dip (Vsd) Beds/Discontinuities dipping from 45 to 60 degrees

Sheer Dip (Srd) Beds/Discontinuities dipping > 60 degrees

Rock samples are identified using the PennDOT classification system unless otherwise noted.

Test Boring Logs

Appendix C

TOPSOIL, some limestone gravel, brown

0.7

SILT, some sand, trace of sandstone gravel, moist, brown & orange, alluvium

SAND and COARSE Gravel (SS), trace clay, dense to very dense, moist to wet, tan & orange, alluvium

1.8

1.4

1.3

1.5

1.0

1.3

0.8

1.1

0.5

50/

PROJECT: Williams River - USFS PROJECT NO.:

CLIENT: UPEA LAT.: LONG.:

PROJECT LOCATION:

BORING START DATE: 09-08-2021 COMPLETION DATE: 09-08-2021 ELEVATION:

BORING LOG DRILLER: Rodger McFadden DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57 LOGGED BY: Ben Staud

B-1 DRILLING METHOD: 4 1/4" Hollow Auger Stem

WATER LEVEL @ TOB*: 5.0' AFTER 24 HOURS: 4.0' CAVE DEPTH

W%=Moisture Content Qp=UCS w/ Pocket Penetrometer C=Cave Depth

D E

P T

H

(f e e t)

W A

T E

R

G R

A P

H

IC

DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

L E

R E

C ft

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V

A L

U E

C O

R E

R E

C

R Q

D

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST

(blows/ft)

W

Q p ts f)

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f e e t)

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic it iv e o f th e s it e

25.0

SANDSTONE, hard, nearly horizontal bedding planes, some weathered bedding fractures, fine grained, gray with black specs

25.7

SANDSTONE, some clay, hard, at 29.7 feet 30 degree angle bedding plane, fine grained, weathered tan, gray

30.7

SANDSTONE, some SHALE PEBBLES, hard, massive, weathered from 31.2 feet to 32. 5 feet gray and tan, less bedding planes, less fractures

Boring terminated at 35.2 ft.

1.0

0.1 0.1

50/

50/

67 1

11.1

PROJECT: Williams River - USFS PROJECT NO.:

CLIENT: UPEA LAT.: LONG.:

PROJECT LOCATION:

BORING START DATE: 09-08-2021 COMPLETION DATE: 09-08-2021 ELEVATION:

BORING LOG DRILLER: Rodger McFadden DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57 LOGGED BY: Ben Staud

B-1 DRILLING METHOD: 4 1/4" Hollow Auger Stem

WATER LEVEL @ TOB*: 5.0' AFTER 24 HOURS: 4.0' CAVE DEPTH

W%=Moisture Content Qp=UCS w/ Pocket Penetrometer C=Cave Depth

D E

P T

H

(f e e t)

W A

T E

R

G R

A P

H

IC

DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

L E

R E

C ft

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V

A L

U E

C O

R E

R E

C

R Q

D

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST

(blows/ft)

W

Q p ts f)

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f e e t)

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic it iv e o f th e s it e

GEOTECH ENGINEERING, INC.

GRAVEL (LS), road material, gray, fill

0.7

SILT, some clay, some fine sand, trace small to medium gravel, stiff to very stiff, moist, reddish brown, alluvium

SANDSTONE ROCK FRAGMENT, soft, gray, alluvium

5.5

SAND, some silt, trace clay, trace fine gravel, moist, red, residuum

5.7

SANDSTONE WITH SHALE STREAKS, fine grained, hard, nearly horizontal bedding planes, medium gray

Boring terminated at 15.2 ft.

1.7

1.0

1.5

0.1

50/

63.6

PROJECT: Williams River - USFS PROJECT NO.:

CLIENT: UPEA LAT.: LONG.:

PROJECT LOCATION:

BORING START DATE: 09-09-2021 COMPLETION DATE: 09-09-2021 ELEVATION:

BORING LOG DRILLER: Rodger McFadden DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57 LOGGED BY: Ben Staud

B-2 DRILLING METHOD: 4 1/4" Hollow Auger Stem

WATER LEVEL @ TOB*: 3.5' AFTER 24 HOURS: NA CAVE DEPTH

Boring backfilled upon completion

W%=Moisture Content Qp=UCS w/ Pocket Penetrometer C=Cave Depth

D E

P T

H

(f e e t)

W A

T E

R

G R

A P

H

IC

DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

L E

R E

C ft

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V

A L

U E

C O

R E

R E

C

R Q

D

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST

(blows/ft)

W

Q p ts f)

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f e e t)

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic it iv e o f th e s it e

GEOTECH ENGINEERING, INC.