5-BCG Site Reconnaissance and Subsurface Exploration Phases 23 Segment 3.pdf

P R O F E S S I O N A L | P R A C T I C A L | P R O V E N 3 9 0 0 K e n n e s a w 7 5 P a r k w a y , S u i t e 1 0 0 , K e n n e s a w , G e o r g i a 3 0 1 4 4 t . 7 7 0 . 4 2 5 . 0 7 7 7 / f . 7 7 0 . 4 2 5 . 1 1 1 3 / u s a n o v a . c o m

April 1, 2024

HEATH AND LINEBACK ENGINEERS, INC.

2390 Canton Road Marietta, Georgia 30066

Attention: Patrick T. Peters, P.E.

Director of Active Transportation

Subject: Site Reconnaissance and Subsurface Exploration Findings Report

BIG CREEK GREENWAY EXTENSION – SEGMENT 3 (PHASES 2 AND 3)

Forsyth County, Georgia NOVA Project No. 2023112

Dear Mr. Peters:

NOVA Engineering and Environmental, LLC (NOVA) is pleased to provide the findings from the site visit and subsurface exploration for the approach slabs of existing Pedestrian Bridges No.

5 and 6 and are summarized below.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

As part of the extension of Big Creek Greenway, the project involves replacement of existing elevated boardwalks in Segment 3 (Phases 2 and 3). Based on the preliminary plans provided, the beginning limits of the project (approximate trail mile marker 5.3) is located to the north of SR 9 (Atlanta Highway) and the ending limits (approximate trail mile marker 8.2) is located to the west of Bethelview Road in Cumming, Georgia. Further, within Phases 2 and 3 of Segment 3, the replacement of existing elevated boardwalks consisted of segment numbers 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 including the boardwalk which was previously used for cattle crossing.

A new elevated boardwalk with segment number 18A is also proposed between approximate trail mile marker 5.7 and 5.8. The existing elevated boardwalks are approximately 10 feet wide, and the replacement is anticipated to be approximately 12 feet wide.

Site Reconnaissance and Subsurface Exploration Findings Report April 1, 2024 Big Creek Greenway Extension – Segment 3, Forsyth County, Georgia NOVA Project No. 2023112

As part of this project, NOVA was requested to perform a site reconnaissance to evaluate the condition of the existing boardwalks. In addition, NOVA was also requested to evaluate probable causes for the observed settlement at the approach concrete slabs of existing Pedestrian Bridges No. 5 and 6 and to provide recommendations in remediating their settlement.

The approximate location of the project site (Site Location Map), Topography and Regional Geology Map are provided as Figures 1, 2 and 3, respectively in Appendix A. Additional details related to site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration via hand auger and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing at the approach concrete slabs of Pedestrian Bridges No. 5 and 6 are provided in their subsequent sections.

SITE RECONNAISSANCE

On November 28, 2023, Naveen Thakur from NOVA performed the field visit for site reconnaissance at the location of the project site. In addition to NOVA, personnel from Heath and Lineback Engineers, Inc. (H&L), and personnel from Forsyth County Capital Projects and Parks and Recreation also performed the field visit. The findings from the site reconnaissance are summarized below. In addition, most of the findings were also noted in Site Observation Notes in Appendix B.

Findings:

The existing elevated boardwalk segment number 18 has been reconstructed in place and supported on timber piles. This boardwalk is immediately adjacent to and west of SR 9 (Atlanta Highway) and appears to be within the limits of GDOT’s right of way.

The existing elevated boardwalk between the approximate trail mile marker 5.6 and 5.7 which was previously used for cattle crossing appears to be in fair condition. However, based on the information provided by H&L, it is NOVA’s understanding that this elevated boardwalk will be removed and reconstructed as slab-on-grade trail section.

Based on the information provided by H&L, between approximate trail mile marker 5.7 and 5.8, a new elevated boardwalk is proposed since the area is usually wet and ponded.

The existing elevated boardwalk segment number 19 is in a wet area and appears to be in a deteriorated condition.

The existing elevated boardwalk segment which is close to the trail mile marker 6.2 is in a wet area and appears to be in a deteriorated condition.

Distress in the form of settlement was noted near the interface of the south approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 5. Based on tape measurements, the total settlement of the south approach slab is approximately 2.0 inches (Refer to Site Photograph 1 in Appendix C).

Distress in the form of settlement was noted near the interface of the north approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 5. Based on tape measurements, the total settlement of the north approach slab is approximately 2.5 inches (Refer to Site Photograph 2 in Appendix C).

Based on the subsurface exploration performed at the location of hand auger test boring B-3, a void of approximately 4.25 inches was noted immediately below the north approach slab of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 5 (Refer to Site Photograph 3 in Appendix C). This information is also discussed in the Subsurface Exploration Section of the Report.

Based on the plans and information provided by H&L, the abutments and retaining walls with their wingwalls of existing pedestrian Bridges No. 5 and 6 in Phases 2 and 3 were supported on H-Piles similar to that of other pedestrian bridges in Phase 1.

The existing elevated boardwalk segment number 20 is in a wet area and appears to be in a deteriorated condition.

Between the joints of the west approach slab of the existing pedestrian Bridge No. 6 and its adjacent concrete slab, approximately 1.5 inches of spacing was noted (Refer to Site Photograph 4 in Appendix C).

Distress in the form of settlement was noted near the interface of the west approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 6. Based on tape measurements, the total settlement of the west approach slab is approximately 1-inch.

Distress in the form of settlement was noted near the interface of the east approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 6. Based on tape measurements, the total settlement of the east approach slab is approximately 1.5 inches (Refer to Site Photographs 5 and 6 in Appendix C).

Near the interface of the east approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 6, spalling of the concrete was noted (Refer to Site Photograph 7 in Appendix C).

The existing elevated boardwalk segment number 21 is in a wet area and appears to be in a deteriorated condition (Refer to Site Photograph 8 in Appendix C).

The existing elevated boardwalk segment number 21 appears to be supported on shallow foundations, which consisted of wooden post embedded into the circular concrete footing. Spalling of the concrete was also noted and the footing appears to be in a deteriorated condition. In addition, the soil in front of and around the footing appeared to be eroded away due to the water flow from the small tributary of Big Creek (Refer to Site Photograph 9 in Appendix C).

The existing elevated boardwalk segment number 22 is not in the wet area. However, the boardwalk appears to be in a deteriorated condition.

The existing elevated boardwalk segment number 23 appears to be supported on shallow foundations, which consisted of wooden post embedded into the circular concrete footing. Spalling of the concrete was also noted and the footing appears to be in a deteriorated condition (Refer to Site Photograph 10 in Appendix C).

The existing elevated boardwalk segment number 23 is not in the wet area. However, the boardwalk appears to be in a deteriorated condition (Refer to Site Photograph 11 in Appendix C).

The existing elevated boardwalk segment number 24 is not in the wet area. However, the boardwalk appears to be in a deteriorated condition (Refer to Site Photograph 12 in Appendix C).

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

To evaluate the settlement distress observed at the approach slabs of existing Pedestrian Bridges No. 5 and 6, NOVA performed subsurface exploration via hand auger test borings and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing. A total of six (6) hand auger test borings designated as B-1 through B-6 were performed on February 8, 2024. At the existing Pedestrian Bridge No.

5, test boring B-1 was performed within the limits of south approach slab, while test borings B-2 and B-3 were performed within the limits of north approach slab. At the existing pedestrian Bridge No. 6, test boring B-4 was performed within the limits of west approach slab, while test borings B-5 and B-6 were performed within the limits of east approach slab. These test borings were hand augured to approximate depths ranging from 0.75 to 5 feet below the existing grades. It should be noted that prior to utilizing hand auger, at the locations of test borings, concrete coring was performed through the bridge approach slabs.

Subsequent to coring, except in test boring B-5, DCP testing and sampling of soils were performed continuously to a depth of 5 feet below the existing grades. In test boring B-5, hand auger and DCP testing could not be advanced due to very dense graded aggregate base and was terminated at a depth of 0.75 feet. The approximate locations of hand auger test borings are shown in Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix D.

Subsurface Findings:

As stated earlier, prior to utilizing hand auger and DCP testing, the concrete approach slabs of existing pedestrian Bridges No. 5 and 6 were cored. The thickness of the concrete at the locations of test borings B-1 through B-6 ranged approximately from 4 to 7 inches.

In test boring B-3, approximately 4.25 inches of VOID was immediately encountered below the concrete indicating the loss of soil support beneath the approach slab.

In test borings B-5 and B-6, approximately 3.5 to 5 inches of graded aggregate base material was encountered below the concrete. Due to graded aggregate base being very dense, hand auger and DCP testing could not be performed in test boring B-5 and the boring was terminated within this material.

Below the concrete in test borings B-1, B-2, B-4, and B-6, and beneath the VOID in test boring B-3, existing fill soils primarily described as silty SAND with varying amounts of gravel were encountered to approximate depths ranging from 2 to 3 feet below the existing grades. The DCP blows ranged from 5 to greater than 25.

Beneath the existing fill in test boring B-6, alluvial soils primarily described as lean CLAY were encountered to an approximate depth of 5 feet below the existing grade. DCP blows ranged from 4 to 11, and the test boring was terminated within this stratum.

Beneath the existing fill soils in test borings B-1, B-2 and B-4, residual soils primarily described as silty SAND and/or sandy SILT were encountered to an approximate depth of 5 feet below the existing grades. DCP blows ranged from 7 to 20, and these test borings were terminated within this stratum.

The Subsurface Profiles, Test Boring Record Summary and Test Boring Records are included in Appendix E. The Laboratory Testing Summary and the results of the laboratory testing including Atterberg Limits and Mechanical Sieve Analysis are included in Appendix F.

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the site reconnaissance and the subsurface exploration, the following conclusions and recommendations are provided:

Boardwalk Replacement Sections:

Most of the existing elevated boardwalk sections in Segment 3 are in wet areas and appear to be in a deteriorated condition. Further, the circular foundations of the boardwalk sections also appear to be in a deteriorated condition. As such, NOVA recommends the removal of the existing boardwalk sections and replaced with new elevated boardwalk sections in their place. NOVA understands that the replacement boardwalk sections will be approximately 12 feet wide.

NOVA understands that the existing elevated boardwalk segment number 18 has already been constructed and is supported on timber piles, while the existing elevated boardwalk section which was previously used for cattle grazing will be removed and reconstructed as a slab-on-grade trail section.

With the exception of existing elevated boardwalk segment number 18 and the existing elevated boardwalk section, which was previously used for cattle grazing, NOVA recommends that helical piers be used for the foundation support of all boardwalk replacement sections and new boardwalk sections in Segment 3.

A helical pier is a segmented deep foundation system with helical bearing plates welded to a central shaft. Load is transferred from the shaft to the soil through these bearing plates. As a result of their helical shape, the helices do not auger into the soil, but rather screw into it with little disturbance. Helical pier sections typically consist of square or hollow shaft piers and anchors, or a combination of the two. The square shaft typically ranges in size from 1½ to 3 inches, whereas the hollow shaft typically ranges in size from 2¾ to 3½ inches in diameter.

The actual design pressure and settlement criteria is provided by the specialty design/builder. However, typical ultimate design capacities of 50 to 200 kips can be achieved with the square shaft helical pier and an ultimate capacity of 60 to 75 kips can be achieved with the hollow shaft helical pier system.

Approach Slabs of Existing Pedestrian Bridges No. 5 and 6:

Based on the subsurface exploration findings from test borings B-1 through B-6, in general, the DCP blows of the existing fill subgrade soils beneath the approach slabs of existing Pedestrian Bridges No. 5 and 6 varied significantly from 5 to greater than 25.

This suggests that the existing fill subgrade soils may not have been properly compacted.

In addition, a VOID of approximately 4.25 inches was also noted in test boring B-3 immediately below the concrete of north approach slab of Bridge No. 5, suggesting that due to surface water intrusion resulting from precipitation events, the subgrade soils may have been eroded/washed away.

It is NOVA’s opinion that the above indicated factors may have resulted in the observed settlement distress of approximately 2 to 2.5 inches at the south and north approach slabs of existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 5, and approximately 1 to 1.5 inches at the west and east approach slabs of existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 6.

In order to remediate the observed settlement distress, NOVA recommends the following:

The approach slabs of existing pedestrian Bridges No. 5 and 6 should be removed in their entirety and reconstructed in place. Based on the field measurements, the approach slabs are approximately 12 feet in length by 12 feet in width.

Subsequent to removal, within the limits of approach slabs, a uniform undercut of 2 feet of existing fill soils is recommended.

The undercut of 2 feet should be replaced with compacted granular material, preferably dense graded aggregate material placed up to the design subgrade elevation of the approach slabs, which is assumed to be at or near the existing grades. Prior to the placement of the fill, a geotextile separation fabric shall be placed at the bottom of the undercut.

The new granular fill material should be compacted with a small vibratory equipment. The fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 6 inches and should be compacted to 98 percent of Standard Proctor Density and within two percent (+/-) of optimum moisture content.

Extra precautions should be taken while compacting close to the existing retaining walls of Bridges No. 5 and 6 so as not to undermine them.

Adequate drainage should be provided to divert any surface water away from the approach slabs.

Open joints between the adjacent concrete slabs should be appropriately sealed so as to prevent surface water infiltration which could potentially weaken and erode/wash off the underlying subgrade soils.

CLOSING

We appreciate being part of the Heath and Lineback team for this important project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you.

Sincerely, NOVA Engineering & Environmental, LLC

Naveen S. Thakur, P.E. Eric K. Tay, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Principal Engineer GA P.E. License 051185 GA P.E. License 022183

LIST OF APPENDICES:

Appendix A – Figures and Maps

Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Topographic Map Figure 3 – Regional Geology Map

Appendix B – Site Observation Notes

Appendix C – Site Photographs

Appendix D – Hand Auger Test Boring/DCP Test Location Plans For Pedestrian Bridges No. 5 & 6

Figure 1 – Hand Auger Test Boring/DCP Testing Location Plan for Pedestrian Bridge No. 5

Figure 2 – Hand Auger Test Boring/DCP Testing Location Plan for Pedestrian Bridge No. 6

Appendix E – Subsurface Data

Subsurface Profiles (Pedestrian Bridges No. 5 & 6) Test Boring Record Summary Key to Symbols and Classifications Test Boring Records

Appendix F – Laboratory Testing Results

Laboratory Testing Summary Atterberg Limits and Mechanical Sieve Analysis Results

Appendix G – Important Information About This Geotechnical Engineering Report

APPENDIX A

FIGURES AND MAPS

• Figure 1 – Site Location Map

• Figure 2 – Topographic Map

• Figure 3 – Regional Geology Map

FIGURE 1 – SITE LOCATION MAP

SOURCE: Google Earth Aerial Photos

Date: Map Data @ 2024 SCALE: As Shown

Big Creek Greenway – Segment 3 Forsyth County, Georgia

NOVA Project No. 2023112

Pedestrian Bridge No. 5

Project Alignment

Pedestrian Bridge No. 6

Project Alignment

FIGURE 2 – TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

SOURCE: USGS National Map Advanced

Viewer 7.5 Minute Topo Cumming, GA 2020

Date Retrieved: 03/28/2024 SCALE: As Shown

Big Creek Greenway – Segment 3

0 1000 2500 5000

FEET

56º 57º

83º

84º

82º

10000

85º

86º

58º 59º

Bridge No. 5

Bridge No. 6

FIGURE 3 - REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP

SOURCE: Geologic Map of Georgia, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1976 SCALE: As Shown

Big Creek Greenway – Segment 3

Project Site

0 1 5 10 miles

AMPHIBOLITE

BIOTITE GNEISS BIOTITIC GNEISS/ MICA SCHIST/

AMPHIBOLITE

APPENDIX B

SITE OBSERVATION NOTES

Site Visit with Forsyth County

5120 Bethelview Road, Cumming, Georgia Date: 11/28/2023 Time: 10:00 am

Attendees:

John Jefferson - Forsyth County Capital Projects David Green - Forsyth County Capital Projects Tim Daniel - Forsyth County Parks and Recreation Rusty Pruitt - Forsyth County Parks and Recreation Carrie Troth - Forsyth County Parks and Recreation Darren Barkley - Forsyth County Parks and Recreation Patrick James - Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc.

Raj Anand - Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc.

Naveen Thakur - NOVA

Subsurface Exploration by NOVA Dated 2/8/2024

Notes By: Naveen Thakur

Existing Boardwalk Replacement - Cattle Crossing:

Elevated boardwalk which was previously used for the purpose of cattle crossing. Per County, NOVA understands that this boardwalk will be removed and replaced with slab-on-grade concrete trail.

Proposed Boardwalk Segment No. 18A:

Elevated boardwalk is proposed in this wet area to get over the low point.

NOVA recommends that helical piles be used for the support of the boardwalk.

Existing Boardwalk Replacement Segment No. 19:

The boardwalk is in the wet area and appears to be in a deteriorated condition. NOVA recommends that helical piles be used for the support of the boardwalk.

Existing Boardwalk Replacement (Close to Mile Marker 6.2):

The boardwalk is in the wet area and appears to be in a deteriorated condition. NOVA recommends that helical piles be used for the support of the boardwalk.

Existing Boardwalk Replacement Segment No. 20:

The boardwalk is in the wet area and appears to be in a deteriorated condition. NOVA recommends that helical piles be used for the support of the boardwalk.

Based on the Site Photograph 2 (Refer to Appendix C), distress in the form of settlement was noted near the interface of the north approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 5. Tape measurements indicated the total settlement to be approximately 2.5 inches.

Based on the hand auger test boring B-3 which was performed at the north approach slab of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 5, approximately 4.25 inches of VOID was noted immediately below the approach slab as shown in Site Photograph 3 (Refer to Appendix C)

Based on the Site Photograph 1 (Refer to Appendix C), distress in the form of settlement was noted near the interface of the south approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 5. Tape measurements indicated the total settlement to be approximately 2.0 inches.

Segment No. 21:

The boardwalk is in the wet area and appears to be in a deteriorated condition. NOVA recommends that helical piles be used for the support of the boardwalk.

Based on the Site Photographs 5 and 6 (Refer to Appendix C), distress in the form of settlement was noted near the interface of the east approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 6. Tape measurements indicated the total settlement to be approximately 1.5 inches.

In addition, based on the Site Photograph 7 (Refer to Appendix C), spalling of the concrete was also noted near the interface of the east approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 6.

Based on the Site Photograph 4 (Refer to Appendix C), approximately 1-inch of spacing was noted between the joints of west approach slab of existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 6 and its adjacent concrete slab.

Segment No. 21:

The boardwalk is in the wet area and appears to be in a deteriorated condition. NOVA recommends that helical piles be used for the support of the boardwalk.

Existing Boardwalk Replacement Segment No. 22:

The boardwalk appears to be in a deteriorated condition. Although, the boardwalk is not in the wet area, due to equipment access issues for pile driving and lack of subsurface information via deeper soil test borings, NOVA recommends that helical piles be used for the support of the boardwalk. Please note that soil test borings cannot be performed in this section of the boardwalk due to drill rig access issues.

Existing Boardwalk Replacement Segment No. 23:

The boardwalk appears to be in a deteriorated condition. Although, the boardwalk is not in the wet area, due to equipment access issues for pile driving and lack of subsurface information via deeper soil test borings, NOVA recommends that helical piles be used for the support of the boardwalk. Please note that soil test borings cannot be performed in this section of the boardwalk due to drill rig access issues.

Based on the Site Photograph 10 (Refer to Appendix C), the existing Boardwalk Segment No. 23 appears to be supported on shallow foundations, which consisted of wooden post embedded into the circular concrete footing. Spalling of the concrete was also noted and the footing appears to be in a deteriorated condition.

Based on the Site Photograph 9 (Refer to Appendix C), the existing Boardwalk Segment No. 21 appears to be supported on shallow foundations, which consisted of wooden post embedded into the circular concrete footing. Spalling of the concrete was also noted and the footing appears to be in a deteriorated condition. In addition, the soil in front of and around the footing appeared to be eroded away due to the water flow from the small tributary of Big Creek.

Based on the Site Photograph 8 (Refer to Appendix C), the existing Boardwalk Segment No. 21 appears to be in a deteriorated condition.

Segment No. 23:

The boardwalk appears to be in a deteriorated condition. Although, the boardwalk is not in the wet area, due to equipment access issues for pile driving and lack of subsurface information via deeper soil test borings, NOVA recommends that helical piles be used for the support of the boardwalk. Please note that soil test borings cannot be performed in this section of the boardwalk due to drill rig access issues.

Existing Boardwalk Replacement Segment No. 24:

The boardwalk is in the wet area and appears to be in a deteriorated condition. NOVA recommends that helical piles be used for the support of the boardwalk.

Based on the Site Photograph 12 (Refer to Appendix C), the existing Boardwalk Segment No. 24 appears to be in a deteriorated condition.

Based on the Site Photograph 11 (Refer to Appendix C), the existing Boardwalk Segment No. 23 appears to be in a deteriorated condition.

APPENDIX C

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Site Photographs

Forsyth County, GA NOVA Project No. 2023112

Photograph 1: Distress in the form of settlement was noted near the interface of the south approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 5. Tape measurements indicated the total settlement to be approximately 2.0 inches. For the approximate location, refer to Appendix B.

Photograph 2: Distress in the form of settlement was noted near the interface of the north approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 5. Tape measurements indicated the total settlement to be approximately 2.5 inches. For the approximate location, refer to Appendix B.

Forsyth County, GA NOVA Project No. 2023112

Photograph 3: Based on the hand auger test boring B-3 which was performed at the north approach slab of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 5, approximately 4.25 inches of VOID was noted immediately below the approach slab. For the approximate location, refer to Appendix B.

Photograph 4: Approximately 1-inch of spacing was noted between the joints of west approach slab of existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 6 and its adjacent concrete slab. For the approximate location, refer to Appendix B.

Forsyth County, GA NOVA Project No. 2023112

Photograph 5: Distress in the form of settlement was noted near the interface of the east approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 6. Tape measurement near B-5 indicated the total settlement to be approximately 1.5 inches. For the approximate location, refer to Appendix B.

Photograph 6: Distress in the form of settlement was noted near the interface of the east approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 6. Tape measurement near B-6 indicated the total settlement to be approximately 1.5 inches. For the approximate location, refer to Appendix B.

Forsyth County, GA NOVA Project No. 2023112

Photograph 7: Spalling of the concrete was noted near the interface of the east approach slab and the retaining wall of the existing Pedestrian Bridge No. 6. For the approximate location, refer to Appendix B.

Photograph 8: The existing Boardwalk Segment No. 21 appears to be in a deteriorated condition. For the approximate location, refer to Appendix B.

Forsyth County, GA NOVA Project No. 2023112

Photograph 9: The existing Boardwalk Segment No. 21 appears to be supported on shallow foundations, which consisted of wooden post embedded into the circular concrete footing. Spalling of the concrete was also noted and the footing appears to be in a deteriorated condition. In addition, the soil in front of and around the footing appeared to be eroded away due to the water flow from the small tributary of Big Creek. For the approximate location, refer to Appendix B.

Photograph 10: The existing Boardwalk Segment No. 23 appears to be supported on shallow foundations, which consisted of wooden post embedded into the circular concrete footing. Spalling of the concrete was also noted and the footing appears to be in a deteriorated condition. For the approximate location, refer to Appendix B.

Forsyth County, GA NOVA Project No. 2023112

Photograph 11: The existing Boardwalk Segment No. 23 appears to be in a deteriorated condition. For the approximate location, refer to Appendix B.

Photograph 12: The existing Boardwalk Segment No. 24 appears to be in a deteriorated condition. For the approximate location, refer to Appendix B.

APPENDIX D

HAND AUGER TEST BORING/

DCP TEST LOCATION PLANS FOR

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES NO. 5 & 6

• Figure 1 – Hand Auger Test Boring/ DCP Testing

Location Plan for Pedestrian Bridge No. 5

• Figure 2 – Hand Auger Test Boring/ DCP Testing

Location Plan for Pedestrian Bridge No. 6

FIGURE 1 – HAND AUGER TEST BORING/

DCP TESTING LOCATION PLAN

SOURCE: Google Earth Aerial Photos Date: Map Data @ 2024

Pedestrian Bridge No. 5

APPROXIMATE AS-DRILLED LOCATIONS OF NOVA HAND AUGER TEST BORING / DCP TESTING

FIGURE 2 – HAND AUGER TEST BORING/

DCP TESTING LOCATION PLAN

SOURCE: Google Earth Aerial Photos Date: Map Data @ 2024

Pedestrian Bridge No. 6

APPROXIMATE AS-DRILLED LOCATIONS OF NOVA HAND AUGER TEST BORING / DCP TESTING

APPENDIX E

SUBSURFACE DATA

• Subsurface Profiles (Pedestrian Bridges No. 5 & 6)

• Test Boring Record Summary

• Key to Symbols and Classifications

• Test Boring Records

B-1

BT

5 ft.

25+

25+

25+

E le va ti o n i n

F e e t-

N A

V D

E le va tio n in

F e e t-N

A V

D

BT - Boring Termination;

Concrete

Fill

Silty SAND (SM)

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Resistance

Wall Location 2 - Braided Ramp SB EL to CD Walls - Profile A-A'

GDOT MMIP SR 400 EXPRESS LANES - PI# 0001757

WFI GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT

Fulton & Forsyth Counties, Georgia

NOVA Project Number 2018089 - Task Order 5

Big Creek Greenway - Segment 3 (Pedestrian Bridge No. 5 - South Approach Slab)

B-2

5 ft.

B-3

BT

5 ft.

E le va ti o n i n

F e e t-

N A

V D

E le va tio n in

F e e t-N

A V

D

BT - Boring Termination;

Concrete

Fill

Silty SAND (SM)

Void Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Resistance

Wall Location 2 - Braided Ramp SB EL to CD Walls - Profile A-A'

GDOT MMIP SR 400 EXPRESS LANES - PI# 0001757

WFI GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT

Fulton & Forsyth Counties, Georgia

NOVA Project Number 2018089 - Task Order 5

Big Creek Greenway - Segment 3 (Pedestrian Bridge No. 5 - North Approach Slab)

B-4

5 ft.

E le va ti o n i n

F e e t-

N A

V D

E le va tio n in

F e e t-N

A V

D

BT - Boring Termination;

Concrete

Fill

SILT (ML)

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Resistance

Wall Location 2 - Braided Ramp SB EL to CD Walls - Profile A-A'

GDOT MMIP SR 400 EXPRESS LANES - PI# 0001757

WFI GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT

Fulton & Forsyth Counties, Georgia

NOVA Project Number 2018089 - Task Order 5

Big Creek Greenway - Segment 3 (Pedestrian Bridge No. 6 - West Approach Slab)

B-5

0.75 ft.

B-6

BT

5 ft.

E le va ti o n i n

F e e t-

N A

V D

E le va tio n in

F e e t-N

A V

D

BT - Boring Termination;

Concrete

Aggregate Base

Fill

Alluvial Soils Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Resistance

Wall Location 2 - Braided Ramp SB EL to CD Walls - Profile A-A'

GDOT MMIP SR 400 EXPRESS LANES - PI# 0001757

WFI GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT

Fulton & Forsyth Counties, Georgia

NOVA Project Number 2018089 - Task Order 5

Big Creek Greenway - Segment 3 (Pedestrian Bridge No. 6 - East Approach Slab)

TEST BORING RECORD SUMMARY

Pedestrian Bridges No. 5 and 6

Note: Elevations and Depths should be considered as approximate; NE – Not Encountered; N/A – Not Applicable; * Void encountered approximately at 0.5 to 0.8 feet below existing grade.

BORING

NUMBER

EXISTING

GROUND

SURFACE

ELEVATION

(ft., NAVD88)

DEPTH TO

GROUNDWATER

(ft.)

APPROXIMATE

ELEVATION OF

GROUNDWATER

(ft., NAVD88)

DEPTH TO

FILL SOILS

(ft.)

APPROXIMATE

ELEVATION OF

FILL

(ft., NAVD88)

DEPTH TO

ALLUVIAL SOILS

(ft.)

APPROXIMATE

ELEVATION OF

ALLUVIUM

(ft., NAVD88)

DEPTH TO

RESIDUAL

SOILS

(ft.)

APPROXIMATE

ELEVATION OF

RESIDUUM

(ft., NAVD88)

DEPTH TO

BORING

TERMINATION

(ft.)

APPROXIMATE

ELEVATION OF

BORING

(ft., NAVD88)

B-1 1025.0 NE N/A 0.6 1024.4 NE N/A 3.0 1022.0 5.0 1020.0

B-2 1025.0 NE N/A 0.4 1024.6 NE N/A 2.0 1023.0 5.0 1020.0

B-3* 1025.0 NE N/A 0.8 1024.2 NE N/A 3.0 1022.0 5.0 1020.0

B-4 1029.0 NE N/A 0.6 1028.4 NE N/A 3.0 1026.0 5.0 1024.0

B-5 1029.0 NE N/A NE N/A NE N/A NE N/A 0.8 1028.2

B-6 1029.0 NE N/A 0.7 1028.3 2.0 1027.0 NE N/A 5.0 1024.0

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

SYMBOLS

50/2”

NX, NQ

REC

RQD

NMC

N/E

N/M

C

STRATA SYMBOLS

Silt - ML

Low Plasticity

Clay - CL

High Plasticity

Paving

Gravel / Graded

Aggregate Base

Fill

Topsoil

Alluvium

Poorly Graded

Sand - SP

Well Graded

Sand - SW

Clay - CH

Partially Weathered

Rock (PWR)

Rock

Elastic Silt - MHSilty Sand - SM

Clayey Sand - SC

Poorly graded silty, clayey sand - SM/SC

Clayey Sand and Gravel - SC/GC

Silty Sand and Gravel - SM/GM

�Z/>>/E'�WZK���hZ�^

^Žŝů�ƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ�ĂŶĚ�ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ�ƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ�ƚĞƐƚŝŶŐ�ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚ�ŝŶ�ĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞ�ǁŝƚŚ��^dD��ϭϱϴϲMͲ18e1͘�dŚĞ�ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ� ƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ�ƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ�ŝƐ�ƚŚĞ�ŶƵŵďĞƌ�ŽĨ�ďůŽǁƐ�ŽĨ�Ă�ϭϰϬ�ƉŽƵŶĚ�ŚĂŵŵĞƌ�ĨĂůůŝŶŐ�ϯϬ�ŝŶĐŚĞƐ�ƚŽ�ĚƌŝǀĞ�Ă�ϮͲŝŶĐŚ�K͘�͕͘�ϭбͲ ŝŶĐŚ� /͘�͘� ƐƉůŝƚ� ƐƉŽŽŶ� ƐĂŵƉůĞƌ� ŽŶĞ� ĨŽŽƚ͘� �ŽƌĞ� ĚƌŝůůŝŶŐ�ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚ� ŝŶ� ĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞ� ǁŝƚŚ� �^dD� �ϮϭϭϯͲ14͘� dŚĞ� ƵŶĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚ� ƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ� ƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞ� ŝƐ� ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚ� ďLJ� �^dD� �ϭϱϴϳMͲ15͘� hŶůĞƐƐ� ŽƚŚĞƌ� ĂƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚƐ� ĂƌĞ� ŵĂĚĞ͕� EKs��ǁŝůů�ĚŝƐƉŽƐĞ�ŽĨ�Ăůů�ƐŽŝů�ĂŶĚ�ƌŽĐŬ�ƐĂŵƉůĞƐ�ƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐ�Ăƚ�ƚŚĞ�ƚŝŵĞ�ŽĨ�ƌĞƉŽƌƚ�submission͘

WOH

Standard Penetration Testing Sample (Uncorrected N-value shown) Undisturbed Sample (UD)

Auger without Sampling Rock Core Sample

Standard Penetration Resistance (ASTM D1586)

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Resistance Water Table at least 24 Hours after drilling

Water Table one (1) Hour or less after drilling

Number of Blows (50) to Drive the Spoon a Number of Inches (2)

Core Barrel Sizes: 2⅛- and 2-Inch Diameter Rock Core, Respectively

Percentage of Rock Core Recovered

Rock Quality Designation - Percentage of Recovered Core Segments 4 or more Inches Long

Loss of Drilling Water

Natural Moisture Content Not Encountered

Not Measured

Caving

Weight of Hammer Non-PlasticNP

�KZZ�>�d/KE�K&�W�E�dZ�d/KE�Z�^/^d�E���t/d,�Z�>�d/s����E^/dz��E���KE^/^d�E�z

�ƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞ�ZĞůĂƚŝǀĞ��ĞŶƐŝƚLJ

^�E�^ sĞƌLJ�>ŽŽƐĞ

>ŽŽƐĞ

DĞĚŝƵŵ��ĞŶƐĞ

�ĞŶƐĞ

sĞƌLJ��ĞŶƐĞ

�ƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞ��ŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐLJ

^/>d^

ĂŶĚ

�>�z^ sĞƌLJ�^ŽĨƚ ^ŽĨƚ &ŝƌŵ ^ƚŝĨĨ sĞƌLJ�^ƚŝĨĨ ,ĂƌĚ

EƵŵďĞƌ�ŽĨ��ůŽǁƐ͕�E� Ϭ�ʹ�ϰ ϱ�ʹ�ϭϬ ϭϭ�ʹ�ϯϬ ϯϭ�ʹ�ϱϬ KǀĞƌ�ϱϬ

EƵŵďĞƌ�ŽĨ��ůŽǁƐ͕�E� Ϭ�ʹ�Ϯ ϯ�ʹ�ϰ ϱ�ʹ�ϴ ϵ�ʹ�ϭϱ ϭϲ�ʹ�ϯϬ ϯϭ�ʹ�ϱϬ KǀĞƌ�ϱϬ sĞƌLJ�,ĂƌĚ

^K/>��>�^^/&/��d/KE��,�Zd�

�K�Z^��'Z�/E�� ^K/>^

'Z�s�>^ �ůĞĂŶ�'ƌĂǀĞů ůĞƐƐ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϱй�ĨŝŶĞƐ

't tĞůů�ŐƌĂĚĞĚ�ŐƌĂǀĞů 'W WŽŽƌůLJ�ŐƌĂĚĞĚ�ŐƌĂǀĞů

'ƌĂǀĞůƐ�ǁŝƚŚ�&ŝŶĞƐ ŵŽƌĞ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϭϮй�ĨŝŶĞƐ

'D ^ŝůƚLJ�ŐƌĂǀĞů '� �ůĂLJĞLJ�ŐƌĂǀĞů

^�E�^ �ůĞĂŶ�^ĂŶĚ ůĞƐƐ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϱй�ĨŝŶĞƐ

^t tĞůů�ŐƌĂĚĞĚ�ƐĂŶĚ ^W WŽŽƌůLJ�ŐƌĂĚĞĚ�ƐĂŶĚ

^ĂŶĚƐ�ǁŝƚŚ�&ŝŶĞƐ ŵŽƌĞ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϭϮй�ĨŝŶĞƐ

^D ^ŝůƚLJ�ƐĂŶĚ ^� �ůĂLJĞLJ�ƐĂŶĚ

&/E��'Z�/E�� ^K/>^

^/>d^��E���>�z^ >ŝƋƵŝĚ >ŝŵŝƚ ůĞƐƐ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϱϬ

/ŶŽƌŐĂŶŝĐ �> >ĞĂŶ�ĐůĂLJ D> ^ŝůƚ

KƌŐĂŶŝĐ K> KƌŐĂŶŝĐ�ĐůĂLJ�ĂŶĚ�Ɛŝůƚ ^/>d^��E���>�z^

>ŝƋƵŝĚ�>ŝŵŝƚ ϱϬ�Žƌ�ŵŽƌĞ

/ŶŽƌŐĂŶŝĐ �, &Ăƚ�ĐůĂLJ D, �ůĂƐƚŝĐ�Ɛŝůƚ

KƌŐĂŶŝĐ K, KƌŐĂŶŝĐ�ĐůĂLJ�ĂŶĚ�Ɛŝůƚ ,/',>z�KZ'�E/��

^K/>^ KƌŐĂŶŝĐ�ŵĂƚƚĞƌ͕�ĚĂƌŬ� ĐŽůŽƌ͕�ŽƌŐĂŶŝĐ�ŽĚŽƌ Wd WĞĂƚ

W�Zd/�>��^/���/��Ed/&/��d/KE�

'Z�s�>^ �ŽĂƌƐĞ в�ŝŶĐŚ�ƚŽ�ϯ�ŝŶĐŚĞƐ &ŝŶĞ EŽ͘�ϰ�ƚŽ�в�ŝŶĐŚ

^�E�^ �ŽĂƌƐĞ EŽ͘�ϭϬ�ƚŽ�EŽ͘�ϰ DĞĚŝƵŵ EŽ͘�ϰϬ�ƚŽ�EŽ͘�ϭϬ &ŝŶĞ EŽ͘�ϮϬϬ�ƚŽ�EŽ͘�ϰϬ

^/>d^��E���>�z^ WĂƐƐŝŶŐ�EŽ͘�ϮϬϬ

CONCRETE: 7 INCHES

FILL: Gray brown silty fine SAND (SM)

RESIDUUM: Brown silty fine SAND (SM)

Boring Terminated at 5 ft.

25+

25+

25+

PROJECT: Big Creek Greenway - Segment 3 PROJECT NO.: 2023112

CLIENT: Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc.

PROJECT LOCATION: Forsyth County, Georgia

HAND AUGER

BORING RECORD

B-1

LOCATION: 34.166770, -84.217831 ELEVATION: 1025.0 feet

DRILLER: NOVA Engineering LOGGED BY: E. Woods

DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 2/8/24

DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/M CAVING> N/M

NOTE:

The ground surface elevation at the test boring location was based on the provided Site Plans and should be considered as approximate.

This boring was drilled through the existing south approach slab of existing Pedestrian Bridge No.5.

D e p th

(f e e t)

E le va ti o n

(f t-

N

AV

D

8)

Description

G ra p h ic

G ro u n d w a te r

S a m p le

T yp e

D C

P b lo w s p e r

-3 /4 i n c h e s Graphic Depiction

10 20 30 40 60 100

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

NATURAL MOISTURE

BLOW COUNT

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 a ti ve o f th e s it e

CONCRETE: 5 INCHES

FILL: Gray brown silty medium to fine SAND (SM)

RESIDUUM: Brown silty fine SAND (SM) with rock fragments

Boring Terminated at 5 ft.

PROJECT: Big Creek Greenway - Segment 3 PROJECT NO.: 2023112

CLIENT: Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc.

PROJECT LOCATION: Forsyth County, Georgia

HAND AUGER

BORING RECORD

B-2

LOCATION: 34.166954, -84.217945 ELEVATION: 1025.0 feet

DRILLER: NOVA Engineering LOGGED BY: E. Woods

DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 2/8/24

DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/M CAVING> N/M

NOTE:

The ground surface elevation at the test boring location was based on the provided Site Plans and should be considered as approximate.

This boring was drilled through the existing north approach slab of existing Pedestrian Bridge No.5.

D e p th

(f e e t)

E le va ti o n

(f t-

N

AV

D

8)

Description

G ra p h ic

G ro u n d w a te r

S a m p le

T yp e

D C

P b lo w s p e r

-3 /4 i n c h e s Graphic Depiction

10 20 30 40 60 100

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

NATURAL MOISTURE

BLOW COUNT

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 a ti ve o f th e s it e

CONCRETE: 5.75 INCHES

VOID: 4.25 INCHES

FILL: Brown silty medium to fine SAND (SM) trace fine gravel

RESIDUUM: Brown silty fine SAND (SM)

Boring Terminated at 5 ft.

PROJECT: Big Creek Greenway - Segment 3 PROJECT NO.: 2023112

CLIENT: Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc.

PROJECT LOCATION: Forsyth County, Georgia

HAND AUGER

BORING RECORD

B-3

LOCATION: 34.166966, -84.217920 ELEVATION: 1025.0 feet

DRILLER: NOVA Engineering LOGGED BY: E. Woods

DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 2/8/24

DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/M CAVING> N/M

NOTE:

The ground surface elevation at the test boring location was based on the provided Site Plans and should be considered as approximate.

This boring was drilled through the existing north approach slab of existing Pedestrian Bridge No.5.

D e p th

(f e e t)

E le va ti o n

(f t-

N

AV

D

8)

Description

G ra p h ic

G ro u n d w a te r

S a m p le

T yp e

D C

P b lo w s p e r

-3 /4 i n c h e s Graphic Depiction

10 20 30 40 60 100

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

NATURAL MOISTURE

BLOW COUNT

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 a ti ve o f th e s it e

CONCRETE: 7 INCHES

FILL: Grayish brown silty coarse to fine SAND (SM) with fine gravel

RESIDUUM: Brown fine sandy SILT (ML) with root fragments

Boring Terminated at 5 ft.

PROJECT: Big Creek Greenway - Segment 3 PROJECT NO.: 2023112

CLIENT: Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc.

PROJECT LOCATION: Forsyth County, Georgia

HAND AUGER

BORING RECORD

B-4

LOCATION: 34.169548, -84.209348 ELEVATION: 1029.0 feet

DRILLER: NOVA Engineering LOGGED BY: E. Woods

DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 2/8/24

DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/M CAVING> N/M

NOTE:

The ground surface elevation at the test boring location was based on the provided Site Plans and should be considered as approximate.

This boring was drilled through the existing west approach slab of existing Pedestrian Bridge No.6.

D e p th

(f e e t)

E le va ti o n

(f t-

N

AV

D

8)

Description

G ra p h ic

G ro u n d w a te r

S a m p le

T yp e

D C

P b lo w s p e r

-3 /4 i n c h e s Graphic Depiction

10 20 30 40 60 100

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

NATURAL MOISTURE

BLOW COUNT

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 a ti ve o f th e s it e

CONCRETE: 4 INCHES

GRADED AGGREGATE BASE: 5 INCHES

Boring Terminated at 0.75 ft.

PROJECT: Big Creek Greenway - Segment 3 PROJECT NO.: 2023112

CLIENT: Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc.

PROJECT LOCATION: Forsyth County, Georgia

HAND AUGER

BORING RECORD

B-5

LOCATION: 34.169541, -84.209077 ELEVATION: 1029.0 feet

DRILLER: NOVA Engineering LOGGED BY: E. Woods

DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 2/8/24

DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/M CAVING> N/M

NOTE:

The ground surface elevation at the test boring location was based on the provided Site Plans and should be considered as approximate.

This boring was drilled through the existing east approach slab of existing Pedestrian Bridge No.6.

Boring was terminated at 0.75 feet below existing grade due to hand auger refusal.

D e p th

(f e e t)

E le va ti o n

(f t-

N

AV

D

8)

Description

G ra p h ic

G ro u n d w a te r

S a m p le

T yp e

D C

P b lo w s p e r

-3 /4 i n c h e s Graphic Depiction

10 20 30 40 60 100

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

NATURAL MOISTURE

BLOW COUNT

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 a ti ve o f th e s it e

CONCRETE: 4.5 INCHES

GRADED AGGREGATE BASE: 3.5 INCHES

FILL: Gray silty medium to fine SAND (SM) with gravel fragments

ALLUVIUM: Grayish brown lean CLAY (CL) with fine sand

Boring Terminated at 5 ft.

PROJECT: Big Creek Greenway - Segment 3 PROJECT NO.: 2023112

CLIENT: Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc.

PROJECT LOCATION: Forsyth County, Georgia

HAND AUGER

BORING RECORD

B-6

LOCATION: 34.169515, -84.209075 ELEVATION: 1029.0 feet

DRILLER: NOVA Engineering LOGGED BY: E. Woods

DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 2/8/24

DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: N/E AFTER 24 HOURS: N/M CAVING> N/M

NOTE:

The ground surface elevation at the test boring location was based on the provided Site Plans and should be considered as approximate.

This boring was drilled through the existing east approach slab of existing Pedestrian Bridge No.6.

D e p th

(f e e t)

E le va ti o n

(f t-

N

AV

D

8)

Description

G ra p h ic

G ro u n d w a te r

S a m p le

T yp e

D C

P b lo w s p e r

-3 /4 i n c h e s Graphic Depiction

10 20 30 40 60 100

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

NATURAL MOISTURE

BLOW COUNT

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 a ti ve o f th e s it e

APPENDIX F

LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

• Laboratory Testing Summary

• Atterberg Limits and Mechanical Sieve

Analysis Results

BO

RI

N G

N O.

LI

QU

ID

L

IM

IT

PL

AS

TI

C

LI

M

IT

PL

AS

TI

CI

TY

IN

D

EX

PE

RC

EN

T

FI

N

ER

#4

PE

RC

EN

T

FI

ER

#2

US

CS

G

D

OT

CL

AS

SI

FI

CA

TI

ON

M

OI

ST

UR

E

CO

N

TE

T

B-3/GS 1.0 - 2.0 NP NP NP 51.6 22.4 SM 10.1

B-4/GS 1.0 - 2.0 NP NP NP 63.9 28.6 SM 13.9

B-6/GS 2.0 - 3.0 39 23 16 97.8 77.3 CL 30.7

Note : "NP" denotes the material as "Non-Plastic"; GS - Grab Sample;

NOVA Project No. 2023112

MECHANICAL SIEVE ANALYSES AND ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS

SA

M

PL

E D

EP

TH

(ft

LABORATORY TESTING SUMMARY

Big Creek Greenway - Segment 3

Tested By: JM Checked By: MLS

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT ASTM D4318

P L

A S

T

IC

IT

Y

I N

D E

X

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o r O

L

CH o r O

H

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

NOVA ENGINEERING

Kennesaw, Georgia

770-425-0777 Date Tested

Source of Sample: B-3 @ 1-2 ft. Depth: 1-2 ft. Sample Number: B-3

Brown silty medium to fine SAND NP NP NP 51.6 22.4 SM

2023112 BCC Engineering, LLC d/b/a Heath and Lineback

3/11/24

Forsyth County Big Creek Greenway

Particle Size Distribution Report ASTM D6913

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 4.4 3.6 40.4 29.2 22.4 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

TEST RESULTS

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass?

Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)

Material Description

Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)

Classification

Coefficients

Date Received: Date Tested:

Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

Date Sampled:Depth: 1-2 ft.Source of Sample: B-3 @ 1-2 ft.

Sample Number: B-3

Client:

Project:

Project No: Date Tested

Brown silty medium to fine SAND

1/2 3/8 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #140 #200

100.0 99.0 95.6 92.0 76.7 51.6 36.6 29.1 25.2 22.4

NP NP NP

SM A-2-4(0)

1.6342 1.1863 0.5337

0.4060 0.1620

NMC = 10.1%

3/6/24

JM

MLS

BCC Engineering, LLC d/b/a Heath and Lineback

Forsyth County Big Creek Greenway

2023112

PL= LL= PI=

USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

* (no specification provided)

NOVA ENGINEERING

Kennesaw, Georgia

770-425-0777 3/6/24

P L

A S

T

IC

IT

Y

I N

D E

X

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o r O

L

CH o r O

H

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

NOVA ENGINEERING

Kennesaw, Georgia

770-425-0777 Date Tested

Source of Sample: B-4 @ 1-2 ft. Depth: 1-2 ft. Sample Number: B-4

Grayish brown silty coarse to fine SAND with gravel NP NP NP 63.9 28.6 SM

2023112 BCC Engineering, LLC d/b/a Heath and Lineback

3/12/24

E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 15.1 5.6 15.4 35.3 28.6 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

TEST RESULTS

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass?

Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)

Material Description

Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)

Classification

Coefficients

Date Received: Date Tested:

Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

Date Sampled:Depth: 1-2 ft.Source of Sample: B-4 @ 1-2 ft.

Sample Number: B-4

Client:

Project:

Project No: Date Tested

Grayish brown silty coarse to fine SAND with gravel

3/4 1/2 3/8 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #140 #200

100.0 92.2 90.0 84.9 79.3 73.4 63.9 52.6 40.4 33.3 28.6

NP NP NP

SM A-2-4(0)

9.4746 4.8284 0.3490

0.2244 0.0842

NMC = 13.9%

3/6/24

JM

MLS

BCC Engineering, LLC d/b/a Heath and Lineback

Forsyth County Big Creek Greenway

2023112

PL= LL= PI=

USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

* (no specification provided)

NOVA ENGINEERING

P L

A S

T

IC

IT

Y

I N

D E

X

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o r O

L

CH o r O

H

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

NOVA ENGINEERING

Kennesaw, Georgia

770-425-0777 Date Tested

Source of Sample: B-6 @ 2-3 ft. Depth: 2-3 ft. Sample Number: B-6

Grayish brown lean CLAY with fine sand 39 23 16 97.8 77.3 CL

2023112 BCC Engineering, LLC d/b/a Heath and Lineback

3/12/24

E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.0 20.5 77.3 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

TEST RESULTS

Opening Percent Spec.* Pass?

Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)

Material Description

Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)

Classification

Coefficients

Date Received: Date Tested:

Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

Date Sampled:Depth: 2-3 ft.Source of Sample: B-6 @ 2-3 ft.

Sample Number: B-6

Client:

Project:

Project No: Date Tested

Grayish brown lean CLAY with fine sand

3/8 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #140 #200

100.0 100.0

99.8 99.4 97.8 94.2 86.9 81.4 77.3

23 39 16

CL A-6(12)

0.1818 0.1336

NMC = 30.7%

3/6/24

JM

MLS

BCC Engineering, LLC d/b/a Heath and Lineback

Forsyth County Big Creek Greenway

2023112

PL= LL= PI=

USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

Remarks

* (no specification provided)

NOVA ENGINEERING

APPENDIX G

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT

THIS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT

QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report represent our professional opinions concerning subsurface conditions at the site. The opinions presented are relative to the dates of our on-site services and should not be relied on to represent conditions at later dates or at locations not explored. The opinions included herein are based on information provided to us, the data obtained at specific locations during the exploration and our past experience. If additional information becomes available that might impact our geotechnical opinions, it will be necessary for NOVA to review the information, reassess the potential concerns, and re-evaluate our conclusions and recommendations.

Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is the possibility that conditions between borings will differ from those encountered at specific boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers and/or the contractors, or that either natural events or the construction process have altered the subsurface conditions. These variations are an inherent risk associated with subsurface conditions in this region and the approximate methods used to obtain the data. These variations may not be apparent until construction.

The professional opinions presented in this geotechnical report are not final. Field observations and foundation installation monitoring by the geotechnical engineer, as well as soil density testing and other quality assurance functions associated with site earthwork and foundation construction, are an extension of this report. Therefore, NOVA should be retained by the owner to observe all earthwork and foundation construction to document that the conditions anticipated in this exploration actually exist, and to finalize or amend our conclusions and recommendations. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report if NOVA does not perform these observation and testing services.

This report is intended for the sole use of CLIENT only. The scope of services performed during this exploration was developed for purposes specifically intended by CLIENT and may not satisfy other users’ requirements. Use of this report or the findings, conclusions or recommendations by others will be at the sole risk of the user. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the interpretation by others of the data in this report, nor their conclusions, recommendations or opinions.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, our conclusions derived and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in the State of Georgia. This warranty is in lieu of all other statements or warranties, either expressed or implied.

Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This

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

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.

Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine…