Tinker_Branch_Geotech_Report.pdf

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

Tinker Branch Culvert Replacement

Cherokee National Forest

Polk County, Tennessee

Prepared For:

USDA Forest Service

Prepared By:

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

May 9, 2013

Cherokee National Forest, Monroe County, TN AMEC Project 6163120182.05

Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ ii LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 OBJECTIVES OF EXPLORATION

3.0 SCOPE OF EXPLORATION

4.0 PROJECT INFORMATION AND SITE CONDITIONS

5.0 SITE GEOLOGY

6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

7.0 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS

8.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

9.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION

9.2 EXCAVATION

9.3 GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT

9.4 PERMANENT SLOPE RECOMMENDATIONS

9.5 COMPACTED FILL

10.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 Boring Location Plan

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Site Photographs

Appendix B Key to Symbols and Descriptions, Test Boring Records and Core

Photographs

AMEC Project 6163120182.05

Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AMEC was selected by the Forest Service to perform a geotechnical exploration for the Tinker Branch Culvert Replacement Project in the Cherokee National Forest along Spring Creek Road in Polk County, Tennessee. The objectives of our exploration were to characterize subsurface conditions at the subject site and provide recommendations regarding foundation support and site preparation for the proposed project.

The Forest Service plans to replace the existing 4-foot diameter corrugated metal culvert at the Tinker Branch crossing along Spring Creek Road, located approximately 125 feet southwest from its intersection with Tinker Branch Road. We understand it is proposed to replace the existing culvert with a bottomless aluminum box culvert. The new culvert location will be several feet northeast of the existing culvert in order to straighten the stream as it passes under Spring Creek Road. Presently, the stream essentially “parallels” Spring Creek Road for a short distance prior to turning perpendicular to Spring Creek Road just before it enters the culvert and passes beneath the road.

The initial boring drilled at the project site encountered auger refusal (the point at which the soil augers could not effectively penetrate the materials encountered) at a shallow depth of about 2.5 feet. The boring was offset 5 feet northeast and a second boring was drilled, which encountered auger refusal at a depth of about 2 feet. A third boring was drilled 7 feet southwest of the initial boring using a casing advancer. The casing advancer in the third boring refused at a depth of about 4.5 feet. The third boring was further advanced to bedrock using an NQ-sized core barrel and about 8.3 feet of bedrock was cored in the boring. Two standard penetration tests were performed in the borings prior to refusal. Primary findings of our geotechnical exploration are summarized following:

· The borings encountered an interval of fill at the ground surface overlying alluvial soils, which are in turn underlain by bedrock.

Boring B-1 encountered an interval of fill from the ground surface to refusal at a depth of about 2.5 feet. The fill was composed of brown silty sand with gravel. The standard penetration test (SPT) N-value in the fill was 52, indicating a very dense soil consistency. The SPT N-value likely reflects refusal materials in the lower sample interval.

We judged the fill consistency to be very firm.

· Alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill. As noted above the borings refused at shallow depths and rock coring techniques were required to penetrate the alluvium. The alluvium was encountered to a depth of just over 17 feet in boring B-1B. The alluvial soils were composed of brown silty sand and gravel with numerous cobbles and boulders. The SPT N-value in the the alluvium prior to refusal B-1B was 21 blows per foot, indicating a very firm soil consistency. Based on the drilling, we judge the alluvium consistencies to be very firm to dense.

· Shale bedrock interbedded with sandstone was encountered underlying the alluvium in boring B-1B. The shale and interbedded sandstone cored were moderately hard and gray in color. The

AMEC Project 6163120182.05

Page iv strata dip of the rock cored was approximately 26 degrees. The overall RQD and core recovery of the bedrock cored was 80 and 100 percent, respectively.

· Ground water was encountered in Borings B-1B at a depth of about 7 feet (about at estimated elevation 90.5 feet based on the provided topographic site plan) at the time of drilling. The creek level entering the culvert at the time of the exploration was estimated between about elevation 91 and 90 feet based on the provided site topography. We anticipate ground-water levels will generally mirror/approximate water levels in the creek.

· Given the apparent depth to bedrock at the site (bedrock was encountered in Borings B-1B at a depth of about 17 feet, which is approximately 9 to 10 feet below the creek bed), we recommend supporting the new bottomless culvert structure on “shallow” strip foundations bearing on the very firm to dense alluvial soils underlying the site with consideration of the scour potential. Past Forest Service experience has indicated the scour depth is 3 to 4 feet below the creek bed. Therefore, we recommend the foundations for the culvert structure be founded at least 3 feet below the creek bed level. In addition, we understand the sides of the culvert will be armored with 6- to 12-inch boulders and the span of the new bottomless culvert is several feet wider than the creek bed, which should reduce the scour potential. Strip/spread foundations bearing on the very firm to dense alluvial soils may be sized for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf).

· The foundations should bear at least 3 feet below the stream bed level and dewatering of the foundation excavations will be required to construction the foundations. Foundation excavations may require protection with diversion/coffer dams. It is anticipated ground-water control can be provided using sumps and cutoff trenches outside the perimeters of foundation excavations. We recommend the ground-water levels be lowered and maintained at a depth of at least one foot below foundation excavation bottoms during construction.

· We anticipate the fill and alluvial materials encountered in the borings can be excavated for the most part with conventional earthmoving equipment (i.e., backhoes, trackhoes, loaders, scrapers and dozers). Removing larger boulders may be facilitated by breaking boulders into smaller pieces using hydraulic and/or pneumatic hammers.

This summary is only an overview and should not be used as a separate document or in place of reading the entire report, including the appendices.

AMEC Project 6163120182.05

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of our subsurface exploration recently performed for the Tinker Branch Culvert Replacement Project in the Cherokee National Forest in Polk County, Tennessee. Our services, as authorized through Contract Number AG-43ZP-C-12-0005, Order AG-4756-D-0040, were provided in general accordance with our proposal for the Tinker Branch Culvert Replacement Geotechnical Exploration, dated January 31, 2013.

2.0 OBJECTIVES OF EXPLORATION

The objectives of our exploration were to characterize subsurface conditions at the subject site and provide recommendations regarding foundation support and site preparation for the subject project. An assessment of site environmental conditions or an assessment for the presence or absence of pollutants in the soil, bedrock, surface water, or ground water of the site was beyond the proposed objectives of our exploration.

3.0 SCOPE OF EXPLORATION

The scope of our exploration was based on our proposal, Tinker Branch Culvert Replacement Geotechnical Exploration, dated January 31, 2013. The scope of the exploration for the project is summarized following:

· The initial boring drilled at the project site encountered auger refusal (the point at which the soil augers could not effectively penetrate the materials encountered) at a shallow depth of about 2.5 feet. The boring was offset 5 feet northeast and a second boring was drilled, which encountered auger refusal at a depth of about 2 feet. A third boring was drilled 7 feet southwest of the initial boring using a casing advancer. The casing advancer in the third boring refused at a depth of about 4.5 feet. The third boring was further advanced to bedrock and a total boring depth of

25.4 feet using an NQ-sized core barrel. About 8.3 feet of bedrock was cored in the boring.

· Two standard penetration tests were performed in the borings prior to refusal.

· Ground water measurements were obtained at the time of drilling.

· Backfilled the borings with a mix of auger cuttings and hole-plug (bentonite clay chips).

· Prepared this geotechnical report summarizing the exploration results and providing our recommendations regarding foundation support and site preparation for the subject project site.

The drilling and sampling were performed in general accordance with ASTM standards. The drilling was performed on March 5, 2013. The equipment used consisted of CME Model 55 track-mounted drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer. The borings were advanced in the

AMEC Project 6163120182.05 overburden soils using hollow-stem augers (where practical) in general accordance with ASTM D 1452 and a HQ casing advancer. Standard penetration testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. Refusal materials were cored in general accordance with ASTM D 2113 using a NQ-size core barrel. Rock recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) were measured and recorded in general accordance with ASTM D 6032.

Ground-water levels were measured during drilling in each boring. Upon completion of drilling, the test borings were backfilled to the existing ground surface with a combination of auger cuttings and bentonite chips.

Subsurface conditions encountered in the borings are presented on the Test Boring Records in Appendix A.

4.0 PROJECT INFORMATION AND SITE CONDITIONS

Project information was provided to us by Mr. Gary Hubbard, P.E., with the Forest Service. We were provided the site location and an existing topographic site of the project site. The Tinker Branch stream crossing is located in the Cherokee National Forest along Spring Creek Road about 125 feet southwest of the Spring Creek Road and Tinker Branch Road intersection in Polk County, Tennessee. The latitude and longitude of the crossing are approximately 35.2373° North and 84.4875° West. The general site location is shown on Figure 1. The topography in the project vicinity is mountainous.

The Forest Service plans to replace the existing 4-foot diameter corrugated metal culvert at the Tinker Branch crossing along Spring Creek Road. We understand it is proposed to replace the existing culvert with a bottomless aluminum box culvert. The new culvert location will be several feet northeast of the existing culvert in order to straighten the stream as it passes under Spring Creek Road. Presently, the stream essentially “parallels” Spring Creek Road for a short distance prior to turning perpendicular to Spring Creek Road just before it enters the culvert and passes beneath the road.

Spring Creek Road typically traverses a forested valley along Spring Creek. Spring Creek Road is a gravel road. The project area is wooded. The stream bed is generally about 8 to 10 feet wide in the general crossing area. Water was flowing in the creek bed while we were on-site and was typically less than 1-foot deep. Materials exposed in the stream bed consisted of sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders. Selected photographs of the site are provided in Appendix A.

5.0 SITE GEOLOGY

Geologic Map of Tennessee, East-Central Sheet, Tennessee Division of Geology (1966), shows the Sandsuck formation underlies the project site. The bedrock of the Sandsuck formation consists of olive-green and gray, argillaceous, micaceous shale with coarse feldspathic sandstone and quartz-pebble conglomerate. The formation is about 2000 feet thick.

AMEC Project 6163120182.05

6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Subsurface conditions in the proposed project area were explored with three borings designated B-1, B-1A and B-1B. AMEC in conjunction with the Forest Service selected the test boring location(s). The locations were established in the field by AMEC personnel by measuring distances from on-site landmarks. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were obtained by plotting the boring locations on the existing topographic site plan of the site provided by the Forest Service. The boring locations and boring ground surface elevations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Figure 2 and on the Test Boring Records in Appendix B, respectively, and should be considered approximate based on their method of establishment.

Subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations are shown on the Test Boring Records. The Test Boring Records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions, based on the field logs and visual examination of the samples by one of our geologists and/or geotechnical engineers. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata on the Test Boring Records represent the approximate interface locations. Brief descriptions of the materials encountered in the borings are provided in the following subsections. Detailed descriptions of the materials encountered in each boring are presented on the Test Boring Records.

As previously noted, the initial boring drilled at the project site (designated B-1) encountered auger refusal (the point at which the soil augers could not effectively penetrate the materials encountered) at a shallow depth of about 2.5 feet. Boring B-1 was offset 5 feet northeast and a second boring (designated B-1A) was drilled, which encountered auger refusal at a depth of about 2 feet. A third boring (designated B-1B) was drilled 7 feet southwest of boring B-1 using a casing advancer. The casing advancer in boring B-1B refused at a depth of about 4.5 feet.

Boring B-1B was further advanced to bedrock using an NQ-sized core barrel and about 8.3 feet of bedrock was cored in boring B-1B. Two standard penetration tests were performed prior to refusal in each of borings B-1 and B-1B.

The borings encountered an interval of fill at the ground surface overlying alluvial soils, which in turn are underlain by bedrock. Boring B-1 encountered an interval of fill from the ground surface to refusal at a depth of about 2.5 feet. The fill was composed of brown silty sand with gravel.

The standard penetration test (SPT) N-value in the fill was 52, indicating a very dense soil consistency. The SPT N-value likely reflects refusal materials in the lower sample interval. We judged the fill consistency to be very firm.

Alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill. As noted above, the borings refused at shallow depths and rock coring techniques were required to penetrate the alluvium. The alluvium was encountered to a depth of just over 17 feet in boring B-1B. The alluvial soils were composed of brown silty sand and gravel with numerous cobbles and boulders. The SPT N-value in the the alluvium prior to refusal was 21 blows per foot, indicating a very firm soil consistency. Based on the drilling, we judge the alluvium consistencies to be very firm to dense.

Shale bedrock interbedded with sandstone was encountered underlying the alluvium in boring B-1B. The shale and interbedded sandstone cored were moderately hard and gray in color.

The strata dip of the rock cored was approximately 26 degrees. The overall RQD and core recovery of the bedrock cored was 80 and 100 percent, respectively. The core recoveries and

AMEC Project 6163120182.05

RQD values for each individual core run are shown on the respective Test Boring Records in Appendix B. Photographs of core recovered are also provided in Appendix B. The photographs also show portions of the alluvial cobbles and boulders recovered in the core runs prior to encountering bedrock.

7.0 GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS

Ground water was encountered in Borings B-1B at a depth of about 7 feet (about at estimated elevation 90.5 feet based on the provided topographic site plan) at the time of drilling. The creek level entering the culvert at the time of the exploration was estimated between about elevation 91 and 90 feet based on the provided site topography. We anticipate ground-water levels will generally mirror/approximate water levels in the creek. For safety reasons, the borings were backfilled promptly; consequently, long-term measurements for the presence or absence of ground water were not obtained. Fluctuations in the ground-water level occur because of variation in rainfall, evaporation, construction activity, surface run-off, and other site-specific factors such as fluctuation of water levels in the stream.

8.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Given the apparent depth to bedrock at the site (bedrock was encountered in Borings B-1B at a depth of about 17 feet, which is approximately 9 to 10 feet below the creek bed), we recommend supporting the new bottomless culvert structure on “shallow” strip foundations bearing on the very firm to dense alluvial soils underlying the site with consideration of the scour potential. Past Forest Service experience has indicated the scour depth is 3 to 4 feet below the creek bed. Therefore, we recommend the foundations for the culvert structure be founded at least 3 feet below the creek bed level. In addition, we understand the sides of the culvert will be armored with 6- to 12-inch boulders and the span of the new bottomless culvert is several feet wider than the creek bed, which should reduce the scour potential.

Strip/spread foundations bearing on the very firm to dense alluvial soils may be sized for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf). We recommend an un-factored, ultimate coefficient of friction between the alluvial soils (silty sands and gravel) and concrete of 0.4 for resistance of footing lateral loads. We expect total and differential settlements will be 1 inch and ¾ of an inch or less, respectively, for the anticipated loading and foundation conditions.

The foundations should bear at least 3 feet below the stream bed level and dewatering of the foundation excavations will be required to construction the foundations. Foundation excavations may require protection with diversion/coffer dams. We recommend the ground-water levels be lowered and maintained at a depth of at least one foot below foundation excavation bottoms during construction. Excavation side slopes will need to be sloped/cut-back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements. These items are discussed further in the Earthworks Section of this report.

We recommend individual strip foundations be a minimum 18 inches wide for ease of construction and to avoid a local punching failure of the foundations in the foundation soils. We recommend a qualified geotechnical engineer observe the foundation excavations before placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify bearing conditions at the foundation

AMEC Project 6163120182.05 subgrade level are similar to conditions encountered in this exploration and appear capable of supporting the design bearing pressure. The foundation bearing areas should be level or suitably benched and free of loose materials, ponded water and debris. Loose bearing materials should be re-compacted or undercut and replaced as recommended by the geotechnical engineer based on field conditions at the time of construction.

9.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

Following are general earthwork considerations and recommendations.

9.1 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION

We understand the existing culvert will be demolished/removed after the installation of the new structure. Excavations created below subgrade levels during the demolition should be backfilled with compacted soil or aggregate fill placed in accordance with the recommendations of this report.

We recommend proofrolling subgrades for roadways and areas to receive compacted fill (if practical) as discussed below to identify soft subgrade areas. Any topsoil, vegetation, debris, and surface soil containing organic material should be stripped from construction areas and disposed of properly. After demolition and any stripping, and after proposed grades are achieved in cut areas, exposed subgrades should be proofrolled where practical.

Proofrolling should be done after a suitable period of dry weather to avoid degrading an otherwise acceptable subgrade. Proofrolling should be performed with a heavily loaded dump truck or with similar approved construction equipment. The proofrolling equipment should make at least four passes over each section, with the last two passes perpendicular to the first two where practical.

We recommend exposed subgrades and proofrolling operations be observed and documented by qualified geotechnical personnel. We recommend actual subgrade stabilization requirements, if deemed necessary, be determined at the time of site preparation, based on observations of the subgrade and the stability of the subgrades as determined during proofrolling or other methods determined at time of construction. Loose, soft, organic, highly plastic, excessively wet soils that pump, rut, or wave during site grading or proofrolling operations should be removed or stabilized.

If soft and/or loose soils are encountered in roadway areas, they are typically mitigated by undercutting the soft soils to expose competent soils and then backfilling with compacted fill to plan subgrade levels or by undercutting poor subgrade soils to some depth and then placing a high-modulus geotextile, geogrid and/or layer of aggregate to establish a stable platform upon which to backfill with compacted fill.

During the excavation and grading, positive surface drainage should be maintained to prevent the accumulation of water. Pumping from sumps may be required in undercut excavations. If the exposed subgrade becomes excessively wet or frozen, or if conditions different from those described previously in this report are encountered, a qualified geotechnical engineer should be consulted. Wet weather, freeze/thaw, and construction activity can all contribute to subgrade

AMEC Project 6163120182.05 degradation. The contractor should perform final subgrade preparations shortly before roadways are to be constructed.

Fine-grained silty soils that may be encountered near the ground surface will not support construction traffic as they get wet. Therefore, where these soils are encountered the contractor should anticipate additional subgrade stabilization will be required during and shortly after wet periods to repair fine-grained soil subgrade areas damaged by construction traffic.

9.2 EXCAVATION

9.1.1 Excavation/Difficult Excavation

We anticipate the fill and alluvial materials encountered in the borings can be excavated for the most part with conventional earthmoving equipment (i.e., backhoes, trackhoes, loaders, scrapers and dozers). Removing larger boulders may be facilitated by breaking boulders into smaller pieces using hydraulic and/or pneumatic hammers. The competent shale and interbedded sandstone would require the use of hydraulic and/or pneumatic hammers to facilitate excavation.

9.2.2 Construction Slopes and Temporary Excavation Support

Temporary excavations should be constructed (sloped or shored) in accordance with OSHA requirements. The alluvial soils underlying the site are generally silty sands and gravels with cobbles and boulders. Foundation excavations will extend below the stream and ground-water levels. We classify the soils in the borings as “C” soils in accordance with OSHA. Where it is desired to not slope back excavation sides, temporary shoring will be required to protect excavations. Again, shoring should be constructed in accordance with OSHA requirements.

9.3 GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT

The foundations should bear at least 3 feet below the stream bed level and dewatering of the foundation excavations will be required to construction the foundations. Foundation excavations may require protection with diversion/coffer dams. It is anticipated ground-water control can be provided using sumps and cutoff trenches outside the perimeters of foundation excavations.

We recommend the ground-water levels be lowered and maintained at a depth of at least one foot below foundation excavation bottoms during construction.

9.4 PERMANENT SLOPE RECOMMENDATIONS

We do not anticipate the project will include any new significant slopes. We recommend permanent slopes less than 20 feet high in competent alluvial soils or properly compacted fill placed in accordance with our recommendations be constructed at 3H:1V or flatter. We recommend higher or steeper slopes, hill side fills and slopes where structures will be located adjacent to the crest or toe be evaluated further with the necessary additional exploration and testing as required.

AMEC Project 6163120182.05

Permanent cut and fill slopes should be seeded and mulched or receive a surface revetment such as riprap to prevent erosion. Surface drainage ditches or swales should be constructed at the crests and toes of the slopes to control surface water.

9.5 COMPACTED FILL

Backfill for the culvert/structure should be in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Our general compacted fill recommendations follow.

Fill soils should be compacted in loose lifts not more than 8 inches thick to at least 98 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). The upper 24 inches of fill beneath roadways should be compacted to at least 100 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density.

As a general rule the moisture content should be maintained within +2 to -3 percentage points of the optimum standard Proctor moisture content. The actual soil used in the compacted fill may dictate narrower or broader required moisture content limits to achieve required compaction levels. This may require contractors to dry or wet soils prior to placement.

Where subgrades are below ground-water levels or are wet and free water is present, an interval of compacted clean-graded stone will need to be placed to a point above water levels to allow placement of the compacted soil fill in the “dry”. A filter/separation fabric should be placed on the clean-graded stone prior to placing soil fill.

We recommend fill soils have a plasticity index (PI) of 30 or less and a standard Proctor maximum dry density of no less than 90 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Fill soils should also be free of organics, debris and deleterious materials and fragment sizes with dimensions greater than 5 inches. The on-site soils minus larger cobbles and the boulders appear suitable for reuse as compacted fill with proper moisture conditioning.

Well before filling operations are scheduled to begin, the proposed fill soil should be tested to determine if the proposed soil is acceptable and for quality control during fill placement. Testing should include maximum dry density, optimum moisture content, natural moisture content, plasticity and grain size distribution.

If surface soils become excessively wet or frozen, fill operations should be halted and we should be consulted for guidance. A qualified engineering technician should observe fill placement and verify specified compaction levels are achieved through field density testing. The frequency of in-place density testing during fill placement will depend on the configuration of the project and volume of fill being placed.

10.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations provided herein are based on the subsurface conditions and on project information provided to us; they apply only to the specific project and site discussed in this report. If the project information section in this report contains incorrect information or if additional information becomes available, you should convey the corrected or additional information to us and retain us to review our recommendations. We will then modify them if the new information has rendered them inappropriate for the proposed project.

AMEC Project 6163120182.05

Regardless of the thoroughness of a field exploration, there is always a possibility that conditions between boring locations will differ from those at specific boring locations, and that conditions will not be as anticipated by the designers or contractors. In addition, the construction process may itself alter subsurface conditions. Therefore, experienced geotechnical personnel should observe and document the construction procedures used and the conditions encountered. Unanticipated conditions and inappropriate procedures will be reported to the design team, along with recommendations to solve the problems created. We recommend AMEC be retained to provide this service, based upon our familiarity with the subsurface conditions and the intent of the recommendations.

FIGURES

NOTE:

BASE MAP TAKEN FROM USGS 7.5 MIN. MCFARLAND QUADRANGLE.

TITLE:

CLIENT:

DR: REV:

DATE:

SCALE:

CHK:

PROJ. NO.:

DWG NO.

1000' 3000'2000'0'

1" = 2000'

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

9725 Cogdill Road

Knoxville, Tennessee 37932

SITE LOCATION

WRW NA

05/08/2013

AS SHOWN

TL

6163120182.05

FIGURE 1

USDA FOREST SERVICE

CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST

2800 North Ocoee Street Cleveland, TN 37312

FIGURE. NO.:

SITE LOCATION MAP

TINKER BRANCH CULVERT REPLACEMENT

CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST

SPRING CREEK ROAD, POLK COUNTY, TN

NOTES:

DR: REV:

DATE:

SCALE:

CHK:

PROJ. NO.:

DWG NO.

FIGURE. NO.:

CLIENT:

TITLE:

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 9725 Cogdill Road

Knoxville, Tennessee 37932

WRW NA

05/08/2013

1" = 20'

TL

6163120182.05

FIGURE 2

BORING LOCATION PLAN

TINKER BRANCH CULVERT REPLACEMENT

CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST

SPRING CREEK ROAD, POLK COUNTY, TN

USDA FOREST SERVICE

CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST

2800 North Ocoee Street Cleveland, TN 37312

APPENDIX A

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1 – Looking northeast up Spring Creek Road across existing culvert.

Photograph 2 – Looking upstream from near existing culvert inlet.

Photograph 3 – Drill rig at approximate new culvert location looking southwest down Spring Creek Road.

Photograph 4 – Looking southwest down Spring Creek Road from Tinker Branch

Road intersection.

Photograph 5 – Existing culvert inlet.

Photograph 6 – Existing culvert outlet.

APPENDIX B

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND DESCRIPTIONS

TEST BORING RECORDS

CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

SPT-1

Firm to Very Firm Brown Silty Sand with Gravel - Fill

Refusal at 2.5 feet

9-7-45

FINES (%)

SPT (bpf)

SAMPLES

I D E N T

9725 Cogdill Road Knoxville, TN 37932

L E G E N D

NM (%)SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AND REMARKS T

Y P E

N-COUNT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1s t 6

2n d

6"

3r d

6"

E L E V

(ft)

LL (%)PL (%)

SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS

AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.

TEST BORING RECORD: B-1LEGEND:

THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.

D E P T H

(ft)

Fill

Alluviuum

Shale Bedrock

90-100: RQD - Recovery (Typ.)

Project: Tinker Branch Culvert Replacement Project No.: 6163120182.05 Driller: Tri-State Drilling, LLC.

Date Drilled: 3/5/2013 Prepared By: T. Lawrence Checked By: C. Tockstein

97.5

92.5

87.5

82.5

77.5

72.5

67.5

REMARKS: Standard peneration testing performed using an automatic hammer. No ground water encountered at time of drilling.

Boring ground surface elevation estimated from provided topographic site plan.

A M

E C

S O

IL

_0

G

IN

T

S O

IL

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

_0 1.

G P

J A

M E

C D

A T

A B

A S

E T

E M

P

LA

T E

1.

G D

T

/9 /1

Auger Boring

Refusal at 2 feet

FINES (%)

SPT (bpf)

SAMPLES

I D E N T

9725 Cogdill Road Knoxville, TN 37932

L E G E N D

NM (%)SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AND REMARKS T

Y P E

N-COUNT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1s t 6

2n d

6"

3r d

6"

E L E V

(ft)

LL (%)PL (%)

SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS

AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.

TEST BORING RECORD: B-1ALEGEND:

THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.

D E P T H

(ft)

Fill

Alluviuum

Shale Bedrock

90-100: RQD - Recovery (Typ.)

Project: Tinker Branch Culvert Replacement Project No.: 6163120182.05 Driller: Tri-State Drilling, LLC.

Date Drilled: 3/5/2013 Prepared By: T. Lawrence Checked By: C. Tockstein

97.5

92.5

87.5

82.5

77.5

72.5

67.5

REMARKS: No ground water encountered at time of drilling. Boring ground surface elevation estimated from provided topographic site plan.

A M

E C

S O

IL

_0

G

IN

T

S O

IL

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

_0 1.

G P

J A

M E

C D

A T

A B

A S

E T

E M

P

LA

T E

1.

G D

T

/9

SPT-1

RC-1

RC-2

RC-3

RC-4

RC-5

Fill

Very Firm Brown Silty Sand and Gravel - Alluvium

Casing Advancer Refusal at 4.5'. Begin NQ Coring

Brown Silty Sand and Gravel with Cobbles and Boulders - Alluvium

Hard Gray Shale with Interbedded Sandstone (Strata Dip at approximately 26 degrees)

Coring terminated at 25.4 feet

5-6-15

43-67

90-100

FINES (%)

SPT (bpf)

SAMPLES

I D E N T

9725 Cogdill Road Knoxville, TN 37932

L E G E N D

NM (%)SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AND REMARKS T

Y P E

N-COUNT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1s t 6

2n d

6"

3r d

6"

E L E V

(ft)

LL (%)PL (%)

SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS

AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.

TEST BORING RECORD: B-1BLEGEND:

THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.

D E P T H

(ft)

Fill

Alluviuum

Shale Bedrock

90-100: RQD - Recovery (Typ.)

Project: Tinker Branch Culvert Replacement Project No.: 6163120182.05 Driller: Tri-State Drilling, LLC.

Date Drilled: 3/5/2013 Prepared By: T. Lawrence Checked By: C. Tockstein

97.5

92.5

87.5

82.5

77.5

72.5

67.5

REMARKS: Standard peneration testing performed using an automatic hammer. Boring ground surface elevation estimated from provided topographic site plan.

A M

E C

S O

IL

_0

G

IN

T

S O

IL

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

_0 1.

G P

J A

M E

C D

A T

A B

A S

E T

E M

P

LA

T E

1.

G D

T

/9

10.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS