Appendix E _ Geotechnical Report.pdf

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

Bridge Replacement - Canada Creek Road W Union County, Georgia Geo-Hydro Project Number 252250.20

Prepared for Union County September 5, 2025

APPENDIX E

400 Chastain Center Boulevard, Suite 430 • Kennesaw, Georgia 30144 o: 770.426.7100 • www.geohydro.com

Bridge Replacement

Mr. Harold Collins September 5, 2025

Union County

65 Courthouse Street, Box 1

Blairsville, Georgia 30512

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

Bridge Replacement - Canada Creek Road W

Union County, Georgia

Geo-Hydro Project Number 252250.20

Dear Mr. Collins:

Geo-Hydro Engineers, Inc. has completed the authorized subsurface exploration for the above referenced project. The scope of services for this project was outlined in our proposal number 252250.P0 dated

July 22, 2025.

PROJECT INFORMATION

The project involves replacing an existing bridge along Canada Creek Road crossing the Toccoa River about 300 feet east of the intersection of Gaddistown Road and Canada Creek Road in Union County, Georgia. We understand that the new bridge will have a single 50-foot span and a width of 12½ feet. The superstructure will consist of steel beams with a cast-in-place reinforced concrete deck. Per our conversation with Mr. Reed Sheats, P.E., the maximum vertical load at each abutment will be on the order of 100 to 120 kips.

Bridge Replacement – Canada Creek Road • Union County, Georgia Project Number 252250.20

Sptember 5, 2025 | 2

EXPLORATORY PROCEDURES

The subsurface exploration consisted of two soil test borings performed at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2 in the Appendix. The test borings were located in the field by Geo-Hydro as close to the existing bridge as site conditions would allow. Elevations shown on the test boring records were interpolated from the SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CANADA CREEK RD W – Existing Site/Demo

Plan (Sheet C 3.0) prepared by Carter Engineering, dated July 8, 2025. Ground elevations are rounded to the nearest foot. The elevation data is not certified as correct by this engineer, and users of the data do so at their own risk. In general, the boring locations and elevations should be considered approximate.

Standard penetration testing, as provided for in ASTM D1586, was performed at select depth intervals in the soil test borings. Soil samples obtained from the drilling operation were examined and classified in general accordance with ASTM D2488 (Visual-Manual Procedure for Description of Soils). Soil classifications include the use of the Unified Soil Classification System described in ASTM D2487

(Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes). The soil classifications also include our evaluation of the geologic origin of the soils. Evaluations of geologic origin are based on our experience and interpretation and may be subject to some degree of error.

Descriptions of the soils encountered in the test borings are provided in the test boring records included in the Appendix. Groundwater conditions, standard penetration resistances, and other pertinent information are also included.

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The project site is located in the Blue Ridge Geologic Province of Georgia. Soils in this area have been formed by the in-place weathering of the underlying crystalline rock, which accounts for their classification as “residual” soils. Residual soils near the ground surface, which have experienced advanced weathering, frequently consist of red brown clayey silt (ML) or silty clay (CL). The thickness of this surficial clayey zone may range up to roughly 6 feet. For various reasons, such as erosion or local variation of mineralization, the upper clayey zone is not always present.

With increased depth, the soil becomes less weathered, coarser grained, and the structural character of the underlying parent rock becomes more evident. These residual soils are typically classified as sandy micaceous silt (ML) or silty micaceous sand (SM). With a further increase in depth, the soils eventually become quite hard and take on an increasing resemblance to the underlying parent rock. When these materials have a standard penetration resistance of 100 blows per foot or greater, they are referred to as partially weathered rock. The transition from soil to partially weathered rock is usually a gradual one, and may occur at a wide range of depths. Lenses or layers of partially weathered rock are not unusual in the soil profile.

Partially weathered rock represents the zone of transition between the soil and the indurated metamorphic rocks from which the soils are derived. The subsurface profile is, in fact, a history of the weathering process that the crystalline rock has undergone. The degree of weathering is most advanced at the ground surface, Sptember 5, 2025 | 3 where fine-grained soil may be present. And the weathering process is in its early stages immediately above the surface of relatively sound rock, where partially weathered rock may be found.

The thickness of the zone of partially weathered rock and the depth to the rock surface have both been found to vary considerably over relatively short distances. The depth to the rock surface may frequently range from the ground surface to 80 feet or more. The thickness of partially weathered rock, which overlies the rock surface, may vary from only a few inches to as much as 40 feet or more.

Stream valleys in the Blue Ridge Region may contain alluvial (water-deposited) soils, depending on ground surface topography, stream flow characteristics, and other factors. By nature, alluvial soils can be highly variable depending upon the energy regime at the time of deposition. Coarse materials such as sand or gravel are deposited in higher energy environments, while fine grained materials such as silt and clay are deposited in low energy environments. Alluvial soils may also contain significant organic materials, and are frequently encountered in a loose, saturated condition. In many cases, fine-grained alluvial soils will be highly compressible and have relatively low shear strength.

TEST BORING SUMMARY

Starting at the ground surface, both borings encountered approximately 6 inches of gravel. Beneath the surface materials, boring B-1 encountered fill material extending to a depth of about 6 feet. The fill was classified as silty sand with varying amounts of rock fragments. Standard penetration test resistances recorded in the fill were 2 and 16 blows per foot.

Beneath the fill material, boring B-1 encountered alluvial (water-deposited) soils extending to a depth of about 12 feet. The alluvial soils were classified as silty sand with rock fragments. Standard penetration test resistances in the alluvial soils ranged from 17 to 26 blows per foot.

Beneath the surface materials or alluvial soils, both borings encountered residual soils typical of the Blue

Ridge Region. The residual soils were classified as sandy silt and silty sand with varying mica content.

Standard penetration test resistances in the residual soils ranged from 9 to 16 blows per foot.

Borings B-1 and B-2 encountered partially weathered rock at depths of about 27 and 8 feet, respectively.

Partially weathered rock is locally defined as residual material having a standard penetration resistance 100 blows per foot or greater.

Borings B-1 and B-2 encountered materials causing auger refusal at depths of 32 and 11 feet, respectively.

Auger refusal is the condition that prevents further advancement of the boring using conventional soil drilling techniques.

At the time of drilling, groundwater was encountered in boring B-1 at a depth of about 8 feet. Boring B-2 did not encounter groundwater. For safety reasons, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. It should be noted that groundwater levels will fluctuate depending on seasonal variations of precipitation and other factors, and may occur at different elevations in the future. We expect the groundwater level at the site to be controlled by the level of the Toccoa River.

Sptember 5, 2025 | 4

For more detailed descriptions of subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, please refer to the test boring record included in the Appendix.

Test Boring Summary

Boring Ground Surface

Elevation

Bottom of Fill Bottom of Alluvium

Groundwater Top of PWR Auger Refusal Boring

Termination

Depth (feet)

Elev.

Depth (feet)

Elev.

Depth (feet)

Depth (feet)

Depth (feet)

Elev.

Depth (feet)

Elev.

Depth (feet)

Elev.

B-1 2016 6 2010 12 2004 8 2008 27 1989 32 1984 32 1984

B-2 2017 NE --- NE --- NE --- 8 2009 11 2006 11 2006

All Depths and Elevations in this Summary Table are Approximate NE: Not Encountered PWR: Partially Weathered Rock

EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are based on the information available on the proposed construction, the data obtained from the soil test borings, and our experience with soils and subsurface conditions similar to those encountered at this site. Because the soil test borings represent a small statistical sampling of subsurface conditions, it is possible that conditions may be encountered during construction that are substantially different from those indicated by the test borings. In these instances, adjustments to the design and construction may be necessary.

Geotechnical Considerations

• Based on the results of the test borings and the anticipated abutment loads, conventional reinforced concrete abutments can be used to support the bridge. We recommend that the abutments bear at an elevation no higher than 2010. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf can be used for design.

• Boring B-2 encountered alluvial soils at the recommended abutment bearing elevation of 2010.

Remedial measures such as excavation and replacement of weak soils extending below elevation 2010 may be required depending on conditions at the time of construction. Any remedial excavations should be backfilled with concrete (1,500 psi compressive strength), non-excavatable flowable fill, or compacted graded aggregate base (GAB) fully wrapped in a non-woven, needle punched geotextile with nominal weight of 8 ounces per square yard (AASHTO M288 Class 1 - Mirafi 180N or similar).

GAB must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density

(ASTM D1557).

• Boring B-1 and B-2 encountered partially weathered rock at depths of about 27 and 8 feet, respectively.

Based on our understanding of the project, we do not expect excavations for the bridge replacement to involve wholesale removal of partially weathered rock, but the possibility that partially weathered rock will be encountered during construction cannot be entirely dismissed.

Sptember 5, 2025 | 5

• At the time of drilling, groundwater was encountered in boring B-1 at a depth of 8 feet. We expect the stabilized groundwater level to be at the approximate water level in the river or a few feet above. Any excavations required for construction that extend to an elevation approaching the river level are likely to encounter groundwater that must be managed to facilitate construction.

• The test borings performed for the project suggest that mass rock is likely located at or near the depth of auger refusal. Following the calculation procedures outlined in the 2018 International Building Code

(Chapter 20, ASCE 7-16), the seismic Site Class for the site D. The mapped and design spectral response accelerations are as follows: SS=0.310, S1=0.102, SDS=0.21, SD1=0.163.

The following sections provide recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical aspects of the project.

Existing Fill Materials

Fill materials were encountered in boring B-1 extending to a depth of about 6 feet. There are several important facts that should be considered regarding existing fill materials and the limitations of subsurface exploration.

• The quality of existing fill materials can be highly variable, and test borings are often not able to detect all of the zones or layers of poor quality fill materials.

• Layers of poor quality fill materials that are less than about 2.5 to 5 feet thick may often remain undetected by soil test borings due to the discrete-interval sampling method used in this exploration.

• The interface between existing fill materials and the original ground surface may include a layer of organic material that was not properly stripped off during the original grading. Depending on its relationship to bearing surfaces, an organic layer might adversely affect support of footings and structures supported at grade. If such organic layers are encountered during construction, it may be necessary to “chase out” the organic layer by excavating the layer along with overlying soils.

• Subsurface exploration is simply not capable of disclosing all conditions that may require remediation.

Excavation Characteristics

Fill materials, alluvial soils, and residual soils should be readily removable using conventional earth moving equipment such as backhoes. Based on the results of the test borings, we expect that excavations for the project will not require ripping or blasting. However, it is important to note that the depth to partially weathered rock and rock can vary drastically over relatively short distances. It would not be unusual to encounter partially weathered rock and rock near the boring locations at shallower depths than those shown on the test boring records.

Sptember 5, 2025 | 6

Typically, excavation of partially weathered rock requires ripping to loosen the materials and facilitate excavation; and generally, natural materials below the depth of auger refusal as encountered in the borings will require impact hammers or blasting to facilitate excavation.

For construction bidding and field verification purposes it is common to provide a verifiable definition of rock in the project specifications. The following are typical definitions of mass rock and trench rock:

• Mass Rock: Material which cannot be excavated with a single-tooth ripper drawn by a crawler tractor having a minimum draw bar pull rated at 56,000 pounds (Caterpillar D-8K or equivalent), and occupying an original volume of at least one cubic yard.

• Trench Rock: Material occupying an original volume of at least one-half cubic yard which cannot be excavated with a hydraulic excavator having a minimum flywheel power rating of 123 kW (165 hp);

such as a Caterpillar 322C L, John Deere 230C LC, or a Komatsu PC220LC-7; equipped with a 5-tooth short tip radius bucket not wider than 42 inches.

The foregoing definitions are based on large equipment typically utilized for mass grading. Retail excavations such as those for construction of the bridge abutments and installation of underground utilities are often performed with smaller equipment such as rubber-tired backhoe/loaders or even mini-excavators.

Contractors will often request additional payment for mobilizing larger equipment than that which was anticipated during preparation of their construction bid. The amount of additional compensation, if any, and the minimum equipment size necessary to qualify for any additional compensation should be defined before the start of construction.

Construction Dewatering

Dewatering should be performed to maintain the groundwater level at least 2 feet below the lowest prevailing excavation depth. We recommend that the project specifications require the use of dewatering as necessary and dictate the result of the dewatering operation. The contractor may then implement a technique or combination of techniques appropriate for the actual field conditions encountered. The following represents a minimum guide specification for dewatering.

Minimum Guide Specification for Dewatering

NOTE: The following specifications are for use as a guide for development of actual specifications.

The guide is not intended for direct use as a construction specification without modifications to reflect specific project conditions.

Control of groundwater shall be accomplished in a manner that will preserve the strength of the foundation soils, will not cause instability of the excavation slopes, and will not result in damage to

Sptember 5, 2025 | 7 existing structures. Where necessary for these purposes, the water level shall be lowered in advance of excavation, utilizing trenches, sumps, wells, well points or similar methods. The water level, as measured in piezometers, shall be maintained a minimum of 2 feet below the prevailing excavation level. Open pumping from sumps and ditches, if it results in boils, loss of soil fines, softening of the ground or instability of slopes, will not be permitted. Wells and well points shall be installed with suitable screens and filters so that continuous pumping of soil fines does not occur. The discharge shall be arranged to facilitate collection of samples by the Engineer.

Adapted from Construction Dewatering - A Guide to Theory and Practice, John Wiley and Sons.

Reuse of Excavated Materials

Based on the results of the test borings and our observations, fill and residual soils appear to be suitable for reuse as structural fill. It is possible that fill materials will be encountered during construction that may not be suitable for reuse. Geo-Hydro should observe the excavation of materials to evaluate their suitability for reuse. Routine adjustment of moisture content will be necessary to allow proper placement and compaction of excavated soils.

It is important to establish as part of the construction contract whether soils having elevated moisture content will be considered suitable for reuse. We often find this issue to be a point of contention and a source of delays and change orders. From a technical standpoint, soils with moisture contents wet of optimum as determined by the standard Proctor test (ASTM D698) can be reused provided that the moisture is properly adjusted to within the workable range. A clear understanding by the general contractor and grading subcontractor regarding the reuse of excavated soils will be important to avoid delays and unexpected cost overruns.

Structural Fill

Materials selected for use as structural fill should be free of organic debris, waste construction debris, and other deleterious materials. The material should not contain rocks having a diameter over 4 inches. It is our opinion that the following soils represented by their USCS group symbols will typically be suitable for use as structural fill and are usually found in abundance in the Blue Ridge: (SM), (ML), and (CL). The following soil types are typically suitable but are not abundant in the Blue Ridge: (SW), (SP), (SC), (SP-

SM), and (SP-SC). The following soil types are considered unsuitable: (MH), (CH), (OL), (OH), and (Pt).

Laboratory Proctor compaction tests and classification tests should be performed on representative samples obtained from the proposed borrow material to provide data necessary to determine acceptability and for quality control. The moisture content of suitable borrow soils should generally be no more than 3 percentage points below or above optimum at the time of compaction. Tighter moisture limits may be necessary with certain soils.

Suitable fill material should be placed in thin lifts. Lift thickness depends on the type of compaction equipment, but a maximum loose-lift thickness of 8 inches is generally recommended. The soil should be compacted by a self-propelled sheepsfoot roller. Within small excavations such as in utility trenches, Sptember 5, 2025 | 8 around manholes, above foundations, or behind retaining walls, we recommend the use of “wacker packers” or “Rammax” compactors to achieve the specified compaction. Loose lift thicknesses of 4 to 6 inches are recommended in small area fills.

We recommend that structural fill be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrades should be compacted in accordance with Georgia DOT requirements to at least 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density

(ASTM D698). Additionally, the maximum dry density of structural fill should be no less than 90 pcf.

Geo-Hydro should perform density tests during fill placement.

Earth Slopes

Temporary construction slopes should be designed in strict compliance with OSHA regulations. The exploratory borings indicate that most soils at the site are Type B and Type C as defined in 29 CFR 1926

Subpart P. This dictates that temporary construction slopes in residual soils for excavation depths of

20 feet or less above the groundwater level should be no steeper than 1H:1V. All excavations in fill materials, or in any soil type extending below the groundwater level, must have a temporary slope gradient no steeper than 1.5H:1V. Temporary construction slopes should be closely observed on a daily basis by the contractor’s “competent person” for signs of mass movement: tension cracks near the crest, bulging at the toe of the slope, etc. The responsibility for excavation safety and stability of construction slopes should lie solely with the contractor.

We recommend that extreme caution be observed in trench excavations. Several cases of loss of life due to trench collapses in Georgia point out the lack of attention given to excavation safety on some projects.

We recommend that applicable local and federal regulations regarding temporary slopes, and shoring and bracing of trench excavations be closely followed.

Formal analysis of slope stability was beyond the scope of work for this project. Based on our experience, permanent cut or fill slopes should be no steeper than 2H:1V to maintain long term stability and to provide ease of maintenance. The crest or toe of cut or fill slopes should be no closer than 10 feet to any foundation or to the edge of any pavement that will support truck traffic. The crest or toe should be no closer than

5 feet to the edge of any pavements supporting cars or light truck traffic or parking. Erosion protection of slopes during construction and during establishment of vegetation should be considered an essential part of construction.

Earth Pressure (Cast-in-Place Structures)

Three earth pressure conditions are generally considered for retaining wall design: "at rest", "active", and

"passive" stress conditions. Retaining walls which are rigidly restrained at the top and will be essentially unable to rotate under the action of earth pressure (such as basement walls) should be designed for "at rest" conditions. Retaining walls which can move outward at the top as much as 0.5 percent of the wall height

(such as free-standing walls) should be designed for "active" conditions. For the evaluation of the resistance of soil to lateral loads the "passive" earth pressure must be calculated. It should be noted that full

Sptember 5, 2025 | 9 development of passive pressure requires deflections toward the soil mass on the order of 1.0 percent to 4.0 percent of total wall height.

Earth pressure may be evaluated using the following equation:

ph = K (DwZ + qs) + Ww(Z-d) where: ph = horizontal earth pressure at any depth below the ground surface (Z).

Ww = unit weight of water

Z = depth to any point below the ground surface d = depth to groundwater surface

Dw = wet unit weight of the soil backfill (depending on borrow sources). The wet unit weight of most residual soils may be expected to range from approximately 115 to 125 pcf.

Below the groundwater level, Dw must be the buoyant weight.

qs = uniform surcharge load (add equivalent uniform surcharge to account for construction equipment loads)

K = earth pressure coefficient as follows:

Earth Pressure Condition Coefficient

At Rest (Ko) 0.53

Active (Ka) 0.36

Passive (Kp) 2.8

The groundwater term, Ww(Z-d), should be used if no drainage system is incorporated behind retaining walls. If a drainage system is included which will not allow the development of any water pressure behind the wall, then the groundwater term may be omitted. The development of excessive water pressure is a common cause of retaining wall failures. Drainage systems should be carefully designed to ensure that long-term permanent drainage is accomplished.

The above design recommendations are based on the following assumptions:

• Horizontal backfill

• 95 percent standard Proctor compactive effort on backfill (ASTM D698)

• No safety factor is included

For convenience, equivalent fluid densities are frequently used for the calculation of lateral earth pressures.

For "at rest" stress conditions, an equivalent fluid density of 66 pcf may be used. For the "active" state of stress an equivalent fluid density of 45 pcf may be used. These equivalent fluid densities are based on the assumptions that drainage behind the retaining wall will allow no development of hydrostatic pressure; that native sandy silts or silty sands will be used as backfill; that the backfill soils will be compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density; that backfill will be horizontal; and that no surcharge loads will be applied.

Sptember 5, 2025 | 10

For analysis of sliding resistance of the base of a cast-in-place concrete retaining wall, the coefficient of friction may be taken as 0.4 for the soils at the project site. This is an ultimate value, and an adequate factor of safety should be used in design. Customarily, retaining wall design includes a factor of safety which affects the global design. Using that design approach, it is not necessary to reduce the coefficient of friction as a design input. Such a reduction would place an unreasonable reduction in the calculation of the frictional resistance.

The force which resists base sliding is calculated by multiplying the normal force on the base by the coefficient of friction. Full development of the frictional force could require deflection of the base of roughly 0.1 to 0.3 inches.

Foundation Design

Based on the results of the test borings and the anticipated abutment loads, conventional reinforced concrete abutments can be used to support the bridge. We recommend that the abutments bear at an elevation no higher than 2010. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf can be used for design.

Boring B-2 encountered alluvial soils at the recommended abutment bearing elevation of 2010. Remedial measures such as excavation and replacement of weak soils extending below elevation 2010 may be required depending on conditions at the time of construction. Although less likely, remedial excavation and replacement may also be required to prepare the east abutment excavation.

Foundation bearing surface evaluations should be performed in the abutment excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or before any preparatory excavation is backfilled to bearing elevation. Geo-Hydro should perform these evaluations to confirm that bearing materials and conditions comply with the design assumptions. Abutment bearing surface evaluations should be performed using a combination of visual observation and hand probing.

Any remedial excavations can be backfilled with concrete (1,500 psi compressive strength), non-excavatable flowable fill, or compacted graded aggregate base (GAB) fully wrapped in a non-woven, needle punched geotextile with nominal weight of 8 ounces per square yard (AASHTO M288 Class 1 -

Mirafi 180N or similar). GAB must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). Considering the site setting, we expect that backfilling with concrete or flowable fill will be more practical and preferable.

Seismic Design

The test borings performed for the project suggest that mass rock is likely located at or near the depth of auger refusal. Following the calculation procedures outlined in the 2018 International Building Code

(Chapter 20, ASCE 7-16), the seismic Site Class for the site D. The mapped and design spectral response accelerations are as follows: SS=0.310, S1=0.102, SDS=0.21, SD1=0.163.

Based on the information obtained from the soil test borings, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction of the soils at the site due to earthquake activity is relatively low.

Sptember 5, 2025 | 11

We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geotechnical consultant for this project and are prepared to provide any additional services you may require. If you have any questions concerning this report or any of our services, please call us.

Sincerely, GEO-HYDRO ENGINEERS, INC.

Max Beaham Luis E. Babler, P.E.

Staff Engineer Chief Engineer mbeaham@geohydro.com luis@geohydro.com

MLB/LEB/252250.20 Canada Creek Road Bridge Replacement - Geotechnical Report leb.docx

APPENDIX

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Approximate Scale, Miles

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5

Bridge Replacement – Canada Creek Road W

Union County, Georgia

Geo-Hydro Project Number 252250.20

Site

G a d d i s t o w n

R o a d

Canada Creek Road W

Bridge Replacement – Canada Creek Road W

Union County, Georgia

Geo-Hydro Project Number 252250.20

LEGEND: Soil Test Boring

Approximate Scale: 1"=30'

30 60

Figure 2: Boring Location Plan

JOSEPH L JACKSON

PARCEL # 047 048

ZONE: CD

AREA: 25.75 AC

JACKSON WARREN

PARCEL # 031 006

ZONE: CD

AREA: 46.01 AC

50' STATE WATERS

BUFFER

CENTERLINE OF

TOCCOA RIVER

50' STATE WATERS

BUFFER

2106.97

EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK

EXISTING TOP OF BANK

18" POP

DEMO LIMITS

AREA = 0.02 AC

SAWCUT AND REMOVE

EXISTING ASPHALT ALONG

LINE

2113.64

TW

2115.74

2116.04

2115.93

FOC

DEMO AND REMOVE

EXISTING WALL

2109.21

BW

2114.26

DEMO AND REMOVE

EXISTING WALL

2113.97

TW

2108.29

BW

2106.33

2112.37

TW

30" POP

EXISTING 30"

POPLAR TO BE

REMOVED

2107.19

BW

2108.51

BW

2112.79

TW

FOC

EXISTING

POWER POLE

DEMO AND REMOVE EXISTING

PORTION OF FENCE

LENGTH = 47.3'

JOSEPH L JACKSON

PARCEL # 047 048

ZONE: CD

AREA: 25.75 AC

FEMA 100-YEAR REGULATORY

FLOODPLAIN ZONE AE

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

S

W

B

C

A

N

A

D

A

C

E

E

K

W

(2) 24" POP

B-1

B-2

C a n a d a C r e e k R o a d

W

T o c c o a i v e r

Symbols and Nomenclature

Symbols ▐ Thin-walled tube (TWT) sample recovered

Thin-walled tube (TWT) sample not recovered

● Standard penetration resistance (ASTM D1586)

50/2” Number of blows (50) to drive the split-spoon a number of inches (2)

65% Percentage of rock core recovered

RQD Rock quality designation - % of recovered core sample which is 4 or more inches long

GW Groundwater

Water level at least 24 hours after drilling

Water level one hour or less after drilling

ALLUV Alluvium

TOP Topsoil

PM Pavement Materials

CONC Concrete

FILL Fill Material

RES Residual Soil

PWR Partially Weathered Rock

SPT Standard Penetration Testing

Penetration Resistance Results Approximate Number of Blows, N Relative Density Sands 0-4 very loose

5-10 loose 11-20 firm 21-30 very firm 31-50 dense Over 50 very dense

Approximate Number of Blows, N Consistency Silts and 0-1 very soft Clays 2-4 soft 5-8 firm 9-15 stiff 16-30 very stiff 31-50 hard Over 50 very hard

Drilling Procedures Soil sampling and standard penetration testing performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The standard penetration resistance is the number of blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1.4-inch I.D. split-spoon sampler one foot. Rock coring is performed in accordance with ASTM D 2113. Thin-walled tube sampling is performed in accordance with ASTM D 1587.

Gravel (Approximately 6 inches) Firm brown and gray silty fine sand (SM) with rock fragments (FILL)

No sample recovered at 5 feet Firm to very firm tan-brown and gray silty fine sand (SM) with rock fragments

(ALLUVIUM)

Stiff tan-brown micaceous fine sandy silt

(ML) (RESIDUUM)

Firm tan-brown and white micaceous silty fine sand (SM)

Partially weathered rock sampled as tan-brown and white silty fine sand (SM)

Auger Refusal at 32 feet

50/4"

E le v.

(F t)

0 30 40 100

S ym bo l

Test Boring Record D ep th

(F t)

G W

T

GWT at Drilling: 8 feet

50 70

Date: 8/5/25

GWT at 24 hrs: N/A: Boring Backfilled Logged By: BGS

Method: HSA- ASTM D1586

Project No: 252250.20Project: Bridge Replacement - Canada Creek Road W Bridge Replacement

Location: Union County, Georgia

Remarks:

Standard Penetration Test (Blows/Foot)

B-1

G.S. Elev: 2016

Description

Driller: FD (Auto-Hammer)

N

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G R

E C

O R

D L

O G

S .G

P J

G E

O H

Y D

R O

.G

T

9/ 5/

Gravel (Approximately 6 inches) Loose to firm tan and white micaceous silty fine sand (SM) (RESIDUUM)

Partially weathered rock sampled as tan-brown and gray micaceous silty fine sand (SM)

Auger Refusal at 11 feet

50/2"

E le v.

(F t)

0 30 40 100

S ym bo l

Test Boring Record D ep th

(F t)

G W

T

GWT at Drilling: Not Encountered

50 70

Date: 8/5/25

GWT at 24 hrs: N/A: Boring Backfilled Logged By: BGS

Method: HSA- ASTM D1586

Project No: 252250.20Project: Bridge Replacement - Canada Creek Road W Bridge Replacement

Location: Union County, Georgia

Remarks:

Standard Penetration Test (Blows/Foot)

B-2

G.S. Elev: 2017

Description

Driller: FD (Auto-Hammer)

N

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G R

E C

O R

D L

O G

S .G

P J

G E

O H

Y D

R O

.G

T

9/ 5/