2-ACES 450 Scottys Way Karst Investigation Report.pdf

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, Inc. 1

Report of Karst Investigation

450 Scottys Way

Bowling Green, KY

Prepared For:

Nick Lawhon, P.G, C.F.M / Geologist Bowling Green Public Works Department Bowling Green, KY

Prepared By:

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, Inc.

P.O. Box 1338 Bowling Green, KY 42101

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, Inc. 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

2.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 SITE CONDITIONS

2.2 EXPLORATION AND TESTING

2.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

3.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 BASIS

3.2 KARST CONSIDERATIONS

3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION

BORING LOCATION MAP

BORING LOG KEY

USCS

BORING LOGS

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, Inc. 4

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

450 Scottys Way Bowling Green, KY

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the karst conditions at the site and develop geotechnical recommendations for remediation. To do so, we drilled borings to assess subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and performed laboratory tests on selected representative soil samples to evaluate engineering properties.

The project involves evaluating a depression that developed at 450 Scottys Way, just south of the main entrance to the FedEx facility in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

We developed the exploration scope and based our recommendations on the design criteria described above. This report presents our findings, our engineering interpretation of those findings in light of the available project information, and recommendations to support remediation.

2.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Conditions

At the time of our investigation, the dropout was located just south of the main entrance to the FedEx facility at 450 Scottys Way in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

2.2 Exploration and Testing

Our interpretation of subsurface conditions is based on four borings completed on May 18 and May 29, 2026, at the locations shown on the Boring Location Map in Appendix A. Nick Lawhon located and staked the boring locations in the field.

The soil borings were performed using a track-mounted drill rig with continuous-flight augers to advance the boreholes. Representative soil samples were obtained using the split-barrel sampling procedure in general accordance with ASTM D1586 and an automatic hammer. In this procedure, a 2-inch outside-diameter split-barrel sampler is driven 18 to 24 inches into the soil by a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through the final 12 inches, expressed as blows per foot (bpf), is the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value shown on the boring logs. This value indicates the consistency of cohesive soils and the relative density of cohesionless soils.

The drill crew maintained field logs of the soils encountered in the borings. After recovery, each sample was removed from the sampler and visually classified. Representative portions were then sealed and taken to our office for examination and laboratory testing to determine fundamental engineering characteristics. Each sample was classified by texture, plasticity, and approximate grain size in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The soils were grouped into the major strata shown on the boring logs. Stratification lines on the boring logs and profiles are approximate; in situ, transitions may be gradual. Laboratory test results are presented on the boring logs and in the appendix.

2.3 Subsurface Conditions

The borings initially penetrated 0 to 6 inches of topsoil, which typically consists of silts, sands, clays, and varying amounts of organic matter. Beneath this surficial layer, very soft to stiff, moderately plastic silty clay with varying amounts of chert was encountered. The silty clay ranged in color from brown to reddish brown. Auger refusal, presumed to indicate the bedrock surface, Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, Inc. 5 was encountered in all borings at depths ranging from 11 to 27-1/2 feet below existing grade.

Although refusal is commonly assumed to represent bedrock, it can also result from other subsurface conditions, such as shot rock fill or an isolated rock floater. Determining the exact cause of refusal would require test pits or air-track rock drilling, which was beyond the scope of this investigation. We understand that rock soundings were performed, but they were outside the scope of our services. Bedrock in this region is often highly pinnacled, and bedrock elevations can vary significantly over short distances. Refer to Appendix A for additional information.

2.4 Groundwater

Groundwater was not observed in the borings below existing ground elevations during drilling.

After testing and groundwater checks were completed, all borings were backfilled with excavated soil.

For this report, groundwater refers to any water that percolates through the site soils, including infiltrating surface water, perched water, and water below the water table, which remains saturated and water-bearing year-round. Groundwater levels can fluctuate over time due to rainfall, environmental conditions, and site features such as adjacent drainage ditches or basins.

The true static groundwater level can only be determined through long-term observations in cased holes, which was beyond the scope of this investigation.

3.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Basis

Our recommendations are based on the data presented in this report, including soil borings, laboratory testing, and our experience with similar projects. Subsurface variations not revealed by a limited exploratory boring program may exist at any site. If such variations or other unexpected conditions are encountered during construction, or if the project information changes or is found to be incorrect, we should be notified immediately because the validity of our recommendations may be affected.

3.2 Karst Considerations

A geophysical survey was performed by Near Surface Geophysics (NSG) before this investigation. As shown in their report, two MASW lines were run northwest and southeast of the current dropout. NSG identified area L2-41 as the potential area of concern related to the dropout.

Sinkholes form when water infiltrates through the soil and carries soil particles into fractures and voids in the underlying bedrock. This typically occurs where depressions or low areas exist in the bedrock and water naturally flows toward them. Geophysical data can help identify these bedrock depressions, which may indicate potential sinkhole activity. If a sinkhole is developing, soft soils are often encountered at depth as soil is lost into the underlying bedrock. Over time, enough soil may wash into the bedrock to produce a surface dropout that is identified as a sinkhole.

The purpose of drilling geotechnical borings in areas of potential karst activity is to determine whether soft soils are present. Soil strength is evaluated using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) conducted during drilling and sampling. One of the most common indicators of an active sinkhole is very low N-values at depth near the bedrock surface. This is because sinkholes typically develop upward from the bedrock surface, so soft soils or voids are commonly found near bedrock and gradually migrate toward the ground surface over time. The more developed the karst feature, the thicker the soft zone is likely to be. N-values less than 5 are considered soft, and values less than 3 are considered very soft.

Based on the geophysical survey results, the existing dropout, the soil borings, and our experience with karst features, we believe there is a high likelihood that an active karst

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, Inc. 6 feature is developing from the existing dropout and extending through borings 5, 6, 11, and 12.

There is no way to determine if or when the sinkholes will reach the ground surface, but the existing roadway is clearly at risk of a dropout. We recommend repairing the feature using either injection grouting or an inverted filter repair.

3.3 Recommendations

Injection Grouting This repair method involves drilling to bedrock at multiple locations within the feature and injecting cementitious grout beginning at the bedrock surface and progressing upward toward the ground surface. The grout seals the sinkhole throat and stabilizes the soils between bedrock and the surface, which can substantially reduce the likelihood of additional settlement in the treated area.

One disadvantage of grouting is that it may shift the problem to another, unpredictable location.

Groundwater that previously drained to this location may find a nearby conduit in the bedrock and flow around the grout, potentially creating another sinkhole over time.

Injection grouting is typically considered a last-resort repair when excavation is not feasible or practical. In this case, completing the repairs would likely require shutting down the road and the entrance to the FedEx facility for several days, and possibly weeks. Even so, grouting may be the best overall solution when all factors are considered. Other repair injections, such as chemical or foam injection, may also be used for karst features, but they have similar drawbacks to cementitious grouting.

Inverted Filter Repair Typical inverted filter repairs involve excavating the feature to bedrock and stabilizing the area with rock and geotextile fabric. The drawing below shows the components of a typical repair;

however, the specific details will depend on the size and depth of the feature.

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, Inc. 7

We offer the following recommendations to reduce the potential for future sinkhole development:

• Control storm water drainage during and after earthwork operations by properly grading the site to promote complete and rapid runoff of surface water away from construction areas and avoid the ponding of water on the site.

• Avoid leaving open excavations overnight or when rain is expected. Excavations holding water can lead to dropouts.

• Locate detention/retention ponds as far as practical from the building

• Construct underground plumbing systems in a leak-proof manner

• To the extent practicable, provide ditches or pipes for discharge of storm water

• Evaluate any area of suspected sinkhole development, such as areas of abnormally thick topsoil deposits, depressed areas, and locations of soil collapse or voids within the overburden

• Where incipient sinkholes are detected, perform remedial treatment as recommended by our geotechnical engineer based on the actual conditions encountered

Our experience indicates that undetected sinkholes are more likely to appear during construction when site drainage patterns have been altered. Therefore, particular care should be taken during grading to check for surface indications of sinkhole activity.

4.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION

The recommendations in this report are based on information obtained from the test borings, which represent subsurface conditions only at the specific boring locations. Conditions at other locations may differ.

The nature and extent of variations between test borings may not become apparent until construction. If such variations are encountered, the recommendations in this report should be re-evaluated after on-site observations are made and the characteristics of the variation are documented.

Our professional services were performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This statement is in lieu of all other warranties, either express or implied. We are not responsible for the independent conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on the field and laboratory data presented in this report.

Our scope of services did not include an environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous materials, or toxic substances in the soil, groundwater, or surface water on or beyond the site. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding vegetation, odors, soil staining, or other unusual observed conditions are provided solely for the information of our client and the owner.

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, Inc. 8

APPENDIX A

Geotechnical Information

Boring Location Map

Boring Log Key

USCS

Boring Logs

Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes

The following information is provided to help you manage your risks.

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specifi c Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specifi c needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfi ll the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geo-technical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without fi rst conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not even you - should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.

Do not read selected elements only.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specifi c Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specifi c factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and confi guration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engi-neer who conducted the study specifi cally indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:

• not prepared for you,

• not prepared for your project,

• not prepared for the specifi c site explored, or

• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an offi ce building, or from alight industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,

• elevation, confi guration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,

• composition of the design team, or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact.

Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natu-ral events, such as fl oods, earthquakes, or groundwater fl uctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifi es subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review fi eld and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes signifi cantly from those indi-cated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your re-port. Those recommendations are not fi nal, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can fi nalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engi-neer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineer-ing reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifi cations. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare fi nal boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of fi eld logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.

Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct ad-ditional study to obtain the specifi c types of information they need or prefer.

A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have suffi cient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the fi nancial responsibilities stemming from unantici-pated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines.

This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-mental study differ signifi cantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually re-late any geoenvironmental fi ndings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental in-formation, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance.

Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, op-eration, and maintenance to prevent signifi cant amounts of mold from grow-ing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a number of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, wa-ter infi ltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose fi ndings are conveyed in-this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be suffi cient to prevent mold from growing in or on the struc-ture involved.

Rely on Your ASFE-Member Geotechnical Engineer For Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engi-neers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefi t for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:’ 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org

Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE’s specifi c written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other fi rm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being anASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

IIGER06045.0M

T h e B e s t P e o p l e o n E a r t h

P la st ic it y

I n d ex

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)

Major Divisions Group

Symbols Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria

C o a rs e -g ra in e d s o ils

(M re t h a n h a lf o f m a te ri a l is l a rg e r th a n N o S ie v e s iz e

G ra v e ls re t h a n h a lf o f c o a rs e f ra c ti o n is la rg e r th a n N o s ie v e s iz e

C le a n g ra v

(L it tl e o r fi e s

GW

Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

D e te rm in e p e rc e n ta g e s o f s a n d a n d g ra v e l fr o m g ra in -s iz e c u rv e

D e p e n d in g o n p e rc e n ta g e o f fi n e s fr a c ti o n s m a lle r th a n N o s ie v e s iz e c o a rs e -g ra in e d s a re c la s s if ie d a s f o llo w s

L e s s t h a n p e rc e n t

G W

G

P S

W S

P

M re t h a n p e rc e n t

G M

G

C S

M S

C t o p e rc e n t

B o rd e rl in e c a s e s r e q u ir in g d u a l s y m b o b

Cu = D60/D10 greater than 4 Cc = (D30)

/(D10xD60) between 1 and 3

GP

Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW

G ra v e ls w it h f in s

(A p p re c ia b le a m o u n t o f fi n e s

GMa d

Silty gravels, gravel-sand mixtures

Atterberg limits below “A” line or P.I. less than 4 Above “A” line with P.I.

between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols u

GC

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures

Atterberg limits below “A” line or P.I. less than 7

S a n re t h a n h a lf o f c o a rs e f ra c ti o n i m a lle r th a n N o s ie v e s iz e

C le a n s a n it tl e o r fi e s

SW

Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines

Cu = D60/D10 greater than 6 Cc = (D 30)

/(D10xD60) between 1 and 3

SP

Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines

Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW

S a n d s w it h f in

(A p p re c ia b le a m o u n t o f fi n e s

SMa d

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Atterberg limits above “A” line or P.I. less than 4 Limits plotting in CL-ML zone with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols u

SC

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

Atterberg limits above “A” line with P.I. greater than 7

F in e -g ra in e d s re t h a n h a lf m a te ri a l is s m a lle r th a n N o S ie v e

S ilt s a n d c la y iq u id l im it l e s s t h a n

ML

Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands, or clayey silts with slight plasticity

Plasticity Chart

CL

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays , silty clays, lean clays

OL

Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

S ilt s a n d c la y iq u id l im it g re a te r th a n

MH

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts 30

CH

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays

OH

Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

H ig h ly

O rg a ic

Pt Peat and other highly organic soils

Liquid Limit a Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used when L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffix u used when L.L. is greater than 28.

b Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group symbols. For example:

GW-GC,well-graded gravel-sand mixture with clay binder. (From Table 2.16 - Winterkorn and Fang, 1975)

"A" line

CH

CL

MH and OH

ML and OL

CL -ML

ARNOLD CONSULTING

ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.

P.O. BOX 1338

BOWLING GREEN, KY 42101

PHONE (270) 780-9445

= Soil Boring Location

Boring Location Map Bowling Green, KY

Scottys Way

Matt Text Box B-1

Matt Text Box B-2

Matt Oval

Matt Text Box B-3

Matt Text Box B-4

Matt Text Box B-5

Matt Text Box B-6

Matt Text Box B-11

Matt Text Box B-12

H.S.A

2-1/4"

Auger Refusal encountered at 15 ft.

Red Silty Clay, Trace Sand, Varying

Amounts of Rock Fragments

CL

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services

BORING LOG Boring # 1

Project: 450 Scottys Way Location:

Bowling Green, KY

Drilling Method: Boring Started: 5/18/2026 Boring Completed: 5/18/2026

Boring Diameter: Drill Rig Type: CME 55 Hammer Type: Auto-140 lb-30in drop

Groundwater:

Depth (ft)

U S

C S

Material Description

S am pl es

Blow Counts N -V al ue

0.0 R

ec ov er y (i n)

R Q

D

M oi st ur e C on te nt

P la st ity

In de x

S oi l C on si st en cy

Remarks

1 2 3 27 Firm1

2 0 0 50/1" NA 30 NA

Office: 270-780-9445

Contact Information:

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, 1136 South Park Drive, Suite 201, Bowling Green, KY 42101

Contact Information:

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, 1136 South Park Drive, Suite 201, Bowling Green, KY 42101

Office: 270-780-9445

Auger Refusal encountered at 22 ft.

CL

Red Silty Clay, Trace Sand, Varying

Amounts of Rock Fragments

1 32 V.Soft3 0 0 1

32 Stiff2 3 7 3 10

3 28 Soft1 1 1 2

0.0 R

ec ov er y (i n)

R Q

D

M oi st ur e C on te nt

P la st x

S oi l C on si st en cy

Remarks

Groundwater:

Depth (ft)

U S

C S

Material Description

S am pl es

Blow Counts N

-V al ue

Drilling Method: Boring Started: 5/18/2026 Boring Completed: 5/18/2026

Boring Diameter: Drill Rig Type: CME 55 Hammer Type: Auto-140 lb-30in drop

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services

BORING LOG Boring # 2

Project: 450 Scottys Way Location:

Bowling Green, KY

Contact Information:

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, 1136 South Park Drive, Suite 201, Bowling Green, KY 42101

Office: 270-780-9445

Auger Refusal encountered at 13 ft.

CL

Red Silty Clay, Trace Sand, Varying

Amounts of Rock Fragments

7 30 Firm1 3 3 4

0.0 R

ec ov er y (i n)

R Q

D

M oi st ur e C on te nt

P la st x

S oi l C on si st en cy

Remarks

Groundwater:

Depth (ft)

U S

C S

Material Description

S am pl es

Blow Counts N -V al ue

Drilling Method: Boring Started: 5/18/2026 Boring Completed: 5/18/2026

Boring Diameter: Drill Rig Type: CME 55 Hammer Type: Auto-140 lb-30in drop

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services

BORING LOG Boring # 3

Project: 450 Scottys Way Location:

Office: 270-780-9445

Auger Refusal encountered at 11 ft.

CL

Red Silty Clay, Trace Sand, Varying

Amounts of Rock Fragments

Contact Information:

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, 1136 South Park Drive, Suite 201, Bowling Green, KY 42101

4 36 Soft1 1 2 2

0.0 R

ec ov er y (i n)

R Q

D

M oi st ur e C on te nt

P la st x

S oi l C on si st en cy

Remarks

Groundwater:

Depth (ft)

U S

C S

Material Description

S am pl es

Blow Counts N -V al ue

Drilling Method: Boring Started: 5/18/2026 Boring Completed: 5/18/2026

Boring Diameter: Drill Rig Type: CME 55 Hammer Type: Auto-140 lb-30in drop

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services

BORING LOG Boring # 4

Project: 450 Scottys Way Location:

Contact Information:

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, 1136 South Park Drive, Suite 201, Bowling Green, KY 42101

Office: 270-780-9445

Auger Refusal encountered at 22 ft.

1 35 V.Soft3 0 1 0

32 Soft2 1 1 3 4

3 29 Soft1 3 2 1

0.0

CL

Red Silty Clay, Trace Sand, Varying

Amounts of Rock Fragments

R ec ov er y (i n)

R Q

D

M oi st ur e C on te nt

P la st x

S oi l C on si st en cy

Remarks

Groundwater:

Depth (ft)

U S

C S

Material Description

S am pl es

Blow Counts N

-V al ue

Drilling Method: Boring Started: 5/18/2026 Boring Completed: 5/18/2026

Boring Diameter: Drill Rig Type: CME 55 Hammer Type: Auto-140 lb-30in drop

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services

BORING LOG Boring # 5

Project: 450 Scottys Way Location:

Contact Information:

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, 1136 South Park Drive, Suite 201, Bowling Green, KY 42101

Office: 270-780-9445

CL

Red Silty Clay, Trace Sand, Varying

Amounts of Rock Fragments

Auger Refusal encountered at 26 ft.

42 V.Soft

4 0 0 0 0

V.Soft

0 0 363 0 0

24 Soft

2 1 2 1 3

7 24 Firm1 3 3 4

0.0 R

ec ov er y (i n)

R Q

D

M oi st ur e C on te nt

P la st x

S oi l C on si st en cy

Remarks

Groundwater:

Depth (ft)

U S

C S

Material Description

S am pl es

Blow Counts N

-V al ue

Drilling Method: Boring Started: 5/18/2026 Boring Completed: 5/18/2026

Boring Diameter: Drill Rig Type: CME 55 Hammer Type: Auto-140 lb-30in drop

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services

BORING LOG Boring # 6

Project: 450 Scottys Way Location:

Contact Information:

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, 1136 South Park Drive, Suite 201, Bowling Green, KY 42101

Office: 270-780-9445

CL

Red Silty Clay, Trace Sand, Varying

Amounts of Rock Fragments

Auger Refusal encountered at 26 ft.

0 32 V.Soft4 0 0 0

29 V.Soft3 0 0 0 0

Soft

1 3 242 1 2

25 Firm

1 3 3 4 7

0.0

R ec ov er y (i n)

R Q

D

M oi st ur e C on te nt

P la st x

S oi l C on si st en cy

Remarks

Groundwater:

Depth (ft)

U S

C S

Material Description

S am pl es

Blow Counts N

-V al ue

Drilling Method: Boring Started: 5/29/2026 Boring Completed: 5/29/2026

Boring Diameter: Drill Rig Type: CME 55 Hammer Type: Auto-140 lb-30in drop

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services

BORING LOG Boring # 11

Project: 450 Scottys Way Location:

Contact Information:

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services, 1136 South Park Drive, Suite 201, Bowling Green, KY 42101

Office: 270-780-9445

CL

Red Silty Clay, Trace Sand, Varying

Amounts of Rock Fragments

Auger Refusal encountered at 27-1/2 ft.

0 33 V.Soft4 1 0 0

29 V.Soft3 0 0 0 0

Soft

1 3 262 3 2

23 Stiff

1 6 6 4 10

0.0

R ec ov er y (i n)

R Q

D

M oi st ur e C on te nt

P la st x

S oi l C on si st en cy

Remarks

Groundwater:

Depth (ft)

U S

C S

Material Description

S am pl es

Blow Counts N

-V al ue

Drilling Method: Boring Started: 5/18/2026 Boring Completed: 5/18/2026

Boring Diameter: Drill Rig Type: CME 55 Hammer Type: Auto-140 lb-30in drop

Arnold Consulting Engineering Services

BORING LOG Boring # 12

Project: 450 Scottys Way Location: