Central_Creek_Stream_Restoration_and_Pedestrian_Bridge.pdf

Central Creek Stream Restoration and

Pedestrian Bridge

JACKSON, MADISON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

March 10, 2026

Prepared By

G o o d w y n M i l l s C a w o o d , L L C 3 3 1 0 W e s t En d A v e n u e , S u ite 4 2 0

Na s h v i l le , T N 3 7 2 0 3

T 6 1 5 . 3 3 3 . 7 2 0 0 w w w . g m c n e tw o r k . c o m

G M C P R O J E C T N U M B E R : G NA S 2 5 0 0 6 1

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

March 10, 2026

Lance Holdorf, P.E.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.

117 Seaboard Lane

Franklin, TN 37067

RE: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

CENTRAL CREEK STREAM RESTORATION & PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

JACKSON, TENNESSEE

GMC PROJECT NO. GNAS250061

Dear Mr. Holdorf, Goodwyn Mills Cawood, LLC (Geotechnical & Construction Services Division) is pleased to provide this report of geotechnical exploration performed for the above referenced project.

This report includes our understanding of the project, the subsurface conditions encountered, and presents the results of field and laboratory testing and recommendations for site preparation, foundations, and retaining walls.

We appreciate the opportunity to perform this study and look forward to continued participation during the construction phase of this project. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to call us.

Sincerely, GOODWYN MILLS CAWOOD, LLC

David Simmons, P.G. Phillip J. Collins, P.E.

Project Geologist Senior Engineer

Licensed TN PE 104645

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Existing Site Conditions

1.2 Planned Construction

1.3 Work Scope

2.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Geology

2.2 General

2.3 Subsurface Conditions

2.4 Groundwater Information

2.5 Laboratory Analyses

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Sitework Recommendations

3.2 Excavation

3.3 Compacted Fill

3.3.1 Soil Fill

3.3.2 Shot-Rock Fill

3.3.3 Possible Slopes and Deep Fills

3.4 Foundations

3.4.1 Spread Footings

3.4.2 Passive Resistance for Shallow Foundations

3.4.3 Steel H-Piles

3.4.4 Parameters for Use in Lateral Analysis of Piles

3.4.5 Scour

3.5 Seismic

3.5.1 Parameters using AASHTO

3.5.2 Parameters using IBC 2018

3.6 Retaining Walls

4.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX: Site Location Plan

Exploration Location Plan

Soil Classification Chart

Exploration Records

Results of Laboratory Testing

Central Creel Stream Restoration & Pedestrian Bridge March 10, 2026

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 1 of 17

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Existing Site Conditions

A geotechnical exploration has been conducted for the proposed Central Creek Stream Restoration and

Pedestrian Bridge project in Jackson, Tennessee. The project includes two locations that are in close proximity to one another. One site will include a new retaining wall near the intersection of Allen Avenue and Sullivan Street, and the other site will include a new retaining wall and pedestrian bridge near N. Church

Street. Please see below for approximate wall and exploration locations overlaid onto Google Earth aerial images.

Central Creek Stream Restoration & Pedestrian Bridge March 10, 2026

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 2 of 17

The existing conditions at the proposed structures include grass cover, as well as trees along the existing creek. The project is located in a residential area. There is a church facility adjacent to the site at Allen

Avenue and Sullivan Street. Both sites are relatively level to mildly sloped.

1.2 Planned Construction

We understand the project will include the construction of retaining walls at both sites, as follows:

1. Wall 1A (Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 1+47.98) and Wall 1B (Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 24.98) – up to about 4 feet high

2. Wall 2 (Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 3+53.63) – up to about 18 feet high

3. Wall 3 (Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 2+15.25) – up to about 5 feet high

4. Wall 4 (Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 2+76.75) – up to about 10 feet high

5. Wall 5 (Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 2+44.08) – up to about 11 feet high

We understand the retaining walls will be Redi Rock Walls and that select backfill material will be placed behind the walls.

We are not currently aware of steep slopes or higher walls that may be associated with the project. We recommend that the wall designer perform global stability analyses of the wall systems, as needed, to complete the design.

The pedestrian bridge will consist of a 56 feet long structure that is about 6 feet wide with a 6-inch reinforced concrete slab on metal deck that is supported by two W24 x 68 steel beams and laterally supported by diaphragms spaced at 13’-3” on center. The bridge will also include an arched truss system that ties into the steel beams and abutments. Please see elevation view of bridge below (drawing, dated

11/26/25, provided by CEC).

The abutments will consist of reinforced concrete bents that are up to 5 to 6 feet high and designed with a

“seat”. The beams will be seated onto the bent as shown in the following detail (drawing, dated 11/26/25, provided by CEC). The preliminary abutment foundation design will include a bent that is supported by a

6.5’ wide x 14’ long x 1’ thick spread footing.

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 3 of 17

We have not been given foundation loads at this time. However, based on information provided, we understand the preliminary foundation design assumed a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf (please see Section 3.4 of this report for recommendations related to foundations). We understand that piles are also being considered in the foundation design, which would likely result in a pile cap, but otherwise alternate dimensions from those used with just spread footings.

Please note the project information and any assumptions listed herein should be reviewed by the appropriate team members. Modifications to our recommendations may be required if the actual conditions vary from our assumptions. We request the opportunity to review updated and final design information to determine if modifications are required.

1.3 Work Scope

The purpose of this exploration was to characterize the subsurface soil conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for site preparation, foundations, and retaining walls associated with the planned construction. The scope of the exploration and evaluation included field and laboratory testing and an engineering evaluation of this information.

The scope of services for the geotechnical exploration did not include any environmental assessment for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air, on, below, or around this site. Any statements in this report or on the exploration records regarding odors, colors, or unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for the information of the client.

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 4 of 17

2.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Geology

Published geologic information (Tennessee Division of Geology, Geologic Map and Mineral Resources

Summary of the Jackson South Quadrangle, 1968) indicates the site areas are underlain by Fluvial Deposits.

These deposits are generally composed of mixtures of sand, silt, clay, and gravel. Specifically, the deposits often consist of fine to very coarse-grained quartz sand with silt and clay that are red-orange to dark yellow-orange, weathering to light brown to dark red-brown. The deposits transported by streams that branch from the South Fork of the Forked Deer River. These types of deposits can be loose or soft, depending on specific content, age, and other factors.

2.2 General

The borings were located in the field by GMC using simple pacing and taping techniques and a hand-held GPS device with pre-loaded coordinates. The borings were located based on an overlay onto Google Earth aerial images (base drawing provided by CEC). GMC performed the following borings:

• Twelve (12) borings at or near planned retaining walls (3 at the north site near Allen Avenue and

Sullivan Street and 9 at the south site near N. Church Street), labeled RW-01 to RW-12. These borings were extended to depths of 20 feet each, with the exception of Borings RW-01, RW-

05, and RW-11. Borings RW-01 and RW-11 encountered refusal prior to planned termination depths, and Boring RW-05 was terminated at around 7.5 feet due to sewage odor.

• Two Borings at or near Pedestrian Bridge abutment locations, labeled BA-01 and BA-02. These borings were extended to depths of 35 feet each.

The borings were drilled using a subcontracted CME 45 drill rig. The ground surface elevations shown on the boring logs are based primarily on information from Google Earth, with consideration of information from preliminary design drawings provided by CEC as well. Based on the methods used, locations and elevations of the borings should be considered approximate. It is noted that final boring locations were offset up to about 10 feet from the initially planned locations because of access limitations due to trees along Central Creek.

The drilled borings were advanced using hollow stem auger (HSA) drilling methods. Samples of the soils were obtained using split-barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with the procedures for Standard Test

Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTM D1586). The samples were identified according to project number, boring number and depth, and were placed in polyethylene plastic wrapping to protect against moisture loss. The collected soil samples were observed in the laboratory to estimate material properties for our evaluation. In addition, laboratory testing was performed on select samples. Laboratory testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM procedures. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings after completion of drilling.

2.3 Subsurface Conditions

The descriptions below represent materials that were encountered by the borings during the course of the fieldwork. The subsurface descriptions contained herein are of a generalized nature to highlight the major soil features and characteristics. The exploration records included in the Appendix should be reviewed for specific information as to individual locations. The stratification shown on the exploration records

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 5 of 17 represents conditions only at the actual locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between exploration locations. In addition, the stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials. Actual transitions may be gradual.

Table 2-1: Summary of Borings

Boring No.

(approx.

elevation2)

Wall Locations

& Approx.

Station (borings were offset up to about 10’ from original locations)

Material1 SPT N-Values

(blows per foot)

Termination Depth

(feet)

BA-01

(388)

Near Wall 5

Station 0+00

Lean Clay to 2.5’

2.5’ to 35’ sand w/silt and silty sand

3 to 26 35

BA-02

(391)

Across stream to

North from Wall

5 Station 0+00

Sandy Silty Clay to 3’

3’ to 9’ sand w/silt

9’ to 17’ Lean Clay

17’ to 35’ sand w/silt

2 to 28 35

RW-01

(413)

Near Wall 1A

Station 1+20

Sandy silt and silty sand to 5.5’ 13 to 23

Refusal encountered at

5.5

(debris/concrete?)

RW-02

(411)

Near Wall 1A

Station 0+60

Sandy silt and silty sand to 20’ 13 to 31 20

RW-03

(407)

Near Wall 1B

Station 0+05

Sandy Silty Clay to 3’

3’ to 8’ silty sand

8’ to 20’ sand w/silt

5 to 29 20

RW-04

(404)

Near Wall 2

Station 3+20

Silty Clay w/sand to 5.5’

5.5’ to 8.5’ Lean Clay w/sand

8.5’ to 20’ silty sand

5 to 15 20

RW-05

(398)

Near Wall 2

Station 2+40 silty sand to 7.5’ 3 to 6

Terminated at 7.5 due to sewage odor

RW-06

(391)

Near Wall 3

Station 1+95

Silty Clay w/sand to 3’

3’ to 11.5’ Sand w/silt

11.5’ to 20’ sand

9 to 28 20

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 6 of 17

Boring No.

(approx.

elevation2)

Wall Locations

& Approx.

Station (borings were offset up to about 10’ from original locations)

Material1 SPT N-Values

(blows per foot)

Termination Depth

(feet)

RW-07

(393)

Near Wall 2

Station 1+00

Silty Clay w/sand to 2.5’

2.5’ to 8.5’ Sand w/silt

11.5’ to 17’ sand

17’ to 20’ silty sand

8 to 34 20

RW-08

(389)

Near Wall 3

Station 0+85

Silty Sand to 5.5’

5.5’ to 11.5’ Sand w/silt

11.5’ to 20’ Sand

3 to 25 20

RW-09

(394)

Near Wall 4

Station 2+25

Silty Clay to 2.5’

2.5’ to 12’ Sand w/silt

12’ to 20’ Sand

4 to 17 20

RW-10

(392)

Near Wall 5

Station 1+70

Silty Clay to 2.5’

2.5’ to 16’ Sand

16’ to 20’ Silty Sand

4 to 16 20

RW-11

(392)

Near Wall 4

Station 1+15 Silty Sand to 5.1’ 6 to 12

Refusal encountered at

5.1

(debris/concrete?)

RW-12

(391)

Near Wall 5

Station 0+40

Silty Sand to 12’

12’ to 20’ Sand w/silt 3 to 36 20

*TABLES 2-1 NOTES: 1) Surface cover was generally silty or silty clay soil with varying amounts of sand; organics were also encountered at shallow depth in many of the borings and wood fragments were encountered at 2 feet at Boring

RW-12. Clay/silt material generally appeared to be low plasticity. 2) Boring elevations noted above are based on information from Google Earth and the provided design drawings; as such, these elevations should be considered approximate and could vary significantly from actual elevations. Any attempt to use boring elevations should be made with caution since the boring elevations are based on approximate boring locations and elevations from

Google Earth images or interpolation from drawings provided. It is noted that for accessibility purposes, many of the borings were laid out so as to be offset several feet from the planned retaining wall locations.

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 7 of 17

2.4 Groundwater Information

Groundwater was encountered in six of the borings at depths ranging from about 12 feet to about 18 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater levels may vary due to seasonal conditions and recent rainfall. It is common for water to migrate along the bedrock surface in this geology. It is also common to have perched or

“trapped” water present within the soil overburden or near the interface of fill and natural materials. It is noted that some soils were wet.

2.5 Laboratory Analyses

The laboratory testing program included visual classification of all samples and laboratory testing on selected soil samples. The laboratory soil testing program was conducted in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards.

The moisture content of selected samples from the borings ranged from approximately 5 percent to 29 percent. Additional test results are summarized in the tables below.

Table 2-2: Laboratory Test Results

Boring

No.

Depth

(feet)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Plasticity

Index

Classification based on

Plasticity

% Passing No.

200 Sieve

BA-01 3.5-5 16 12 4 Silty Clay (CL-ML) -

RW-03 1-2.5 16 14 2

Silt (ML)

(overall, a silty sand – SM)

RW-05 - - - - - 14

RW-11 3.5-5 - - - - 40

Table 2-3: Remolded Direct Shear, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Standard Proctor, and Dry Unit

Weight Test Results

Boring

No.

Depth

(feet)

Direct

Shear

Φ’

Direct

Shear

C

(psi)

Unconfined

Compressive

Strength

(psf)

Standard

Proctor

Maximum Dry

Unit Weight

Optimum

Moisture

Dry Unit Weight

(pcf)

RW-03 1-2.5 - - - 121.2 11.5 -

RW-03 3-5 24.5°

3.27

(470 psf)

- 108.5 18.5

(sample was dry & blocky – desiccated?)

RW-05 4-6 - - - - - 89

RW-08 2-4 - - 470 - - 109

RW-12 5.3-5.8 23.2°

4.31

(620 psf)

- - - 110

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 8 of 17

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Sitework Recommendations

Sitework should begin initially with stripping and grubbing. This will require removal of all debris, vegetation, topsoil, and other unsuitable or deleterious materials. In addition, existing foundations, pavements, utilities, etc.

should be removed, if applicable. The stripping, clearing, and grubbing should extend at least 10 horizontal feet beyond the construction limits, where possible.

Where applicable, after stripping of the site areas which are to receive fill, the soil subgrade should be thoroughly proofrolled to locate any soft soils. Proofrolling consists of repeated passes with a fully loaded tandem-axle dump truck (probing or alternative evaluation should be performed in areas where proofrolling is not possible). Areas that rut or pump excessively will indicate soils that require remediation. Attempts can first be made to compact the problem soils if they are less than about one foot thick. If dry weather conditions exist prior to and at the time construction, re-compaction and densification may prove successful. The soils should be scarified and the soil moisture should be adjusted to within 3 percent of optimum moisture. Once these criteria have been accomplished, re-compaction of the soils may be attempted.

We recommend a GMC geotechnical engineer observe the proofrolling operations and provide recommendations based on materials encountered at the proposed subgrade. It is noted that soils that have previously passed proofroll evaluations can still require remediation at a later date, especially if the area is left open to weather for long periods of time.

It is noted that the time of year that construction takes place can have a significant impact on the progress and costs of earthwork. Although variations occur, in this area, the wet season is normally between

November and April and the dry season is normally between May and October. During wetter periods, it is not uncommon to encounter softer soils that require either drying or over-excavation and replacement (or other remedial measures).

3.2 Excavation

Refusal was encountered in two of the borings at depths of about 5 feet to about 5.5 feet. However, based on the geology, we expect refusal was due to subsurface debris or concrete and not bedrock. In general, we anticipate that site grading and excavation activities can be accomplished using conventional earth moving equipment. If exceptions occur, we expect they can be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Excavation for temporary or permanent conditions should comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) requirements. Safety is solely the responsibility of the contractor.

3.3 Compacted Fill

3.3.1 Soil Fill

Soil fill material should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8-inches in thickness if compacted by large equipment and 4 inches if compacted by manually-guided equipment. The following table summarizes the compacted fill requirements:

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 9 of 17

Location Test Method Compaction Required

(minimum) Moisture Content

Structural Areas ASTM D-698 98% -/+3 percentage points of optimum moisture

All other areas ASTM D-698 95% -/+3 percentage points of optimum moisture

Fill material should meet the following characteristics:

Property Requirement

Liquid Limit (LL) and Plasticity Index (PI) LL<55% and PI <35%

Maximum Dry Density (ASTM D-698) > 95 pcf

Maximum Particle Size 3 inches or less

Organic Content (by weight) <5%

Samples of the proposed fill materials should be provided to the geotechnical engineer for testing and evaluation prior to placement. Density tests should be performed to document compaction and moisture content of any earthwork involving soils and other applicable materials. Density tests should be performed frequently, with a recommended minimum of 3 tests per 5,000 square feet per lift of fill placed. Fill material must meet the specified density and moisture requirements to be considered acceptable.

3.3.2 Shot-Rock Fill

Shot-rock is a commonly used material for fill in the Middle Tennessee area, but it may not be as available in the Jackson area. Even so, the use of shot rock fill or surge stone may be useful, depending on the final design approach to the bridge abutment foundations. Shot-rock or surge stone fill can often be used to improve subgrade conditions and can also be used in inclement weather, since it is more resistant than soil to degradation and rutting under construction traffic.

Suitable material for use as shot-rock fill includes rock fragments that are smaller than 12 inches in any one dimension or two-thirds the lift thickness, whichever is smaller (some quarries may call smaller material

“surge stone”). The rock fill should contain no more than 20 percent of soil particles (fines) by volume, which is generally enough fines to “choke” the shot-rock but still allow for point-to-point contact.

During placement, the larger rock pieces should lie flat and not overlap each other. Lift thickness should not exceed 18 inches, loose. The fill lifts should be placed and compacted by making multiple, perpendicular passes with a D-8 size or larger bulldozer and a smooth-drum vibratory roller. Smaller sized dozers will not provide the compactive effort required for the stiffness needed. The number of passes should be sufficient to demonstrate the material is densified and stable. We anticipate a minimum of four passes in each direction will be required. GMC personnel should observe the shot-rock fill placement to document the fill constituents, lift thickness, and compaction efforts and the performance of the material under load.

Please note that excavations into shot-rock fill can be larger than similar excavations into clay soil. Thus, in areas where foundation excavations, utility excavations, or similar excavations into shot rock are expected, GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 10 of 17 it may be desirable to use shot-rock fill with rock fragments that are smaller than 6 inches in any one dimension. If soil material or crushed aggregate is expected over the shot rock, the shot rock should be choked off or filter fabric placed to reduce the risk of raveling (i.e., migration of fines into shot rock), which could result in settlement.

3.3.3 Possible Slopes and Deep Fills

We understand the project will include retaining walls with backfills up to approximately 18 feet. We expect that fill slopes will generally be at 2.5H:1V or flatter (we recommend 3H:1V or flatter where possible for all slopes). The face of such slopes may be covered with at least 1.5 feet of riprap.

Depending on final design details, it is possible that bridge approach embankments will require up to about

6 feet of fill to reach planned grades. It should be recognized that deep fills can produce settlement of the underlying soils as well as settlement of the fill itself.

Based on the nature of the subsurface soils, we generally expect that settlement of the underlying materials will occur shortly after placement of fill is completed (often within 3 to 12 weeks of construction). Similarly, we expect self-settlement of fill will primarily occur within the same time period following placement of the fill. Even so, it may be desirable to monitor settlement of fills deeper than about 10 feet by establishing the elevation of several points at the top of the fill as compared to elevations of several independent control points and document settlement periodically, until the rate of settlement is essentially zero.

Depending on the materials to be used for embankment fill, it may be necessary to perform additional sampling and laboratory testing to better estimate settlement associated with embankment fills.

3.4 Foundations

We understand there will be two abutment footings that, from a preliminary design standpoint, are about 6.5 feet wide x approximately 14 feet long x 1’ thick. We expect the overall load at each abutment will be somewhere between about 60 kips and 182 kips. However, we have not been given loading information at this time. For this loading range, as long as scour is not an issue, it should be possible to use a shallow spread footing that bears at least 18 inches below the ground surface for frost protection (plus other depth needed to satisfy structural design). However, our borings encountered soft and loose soils at the bridge abutment areas. Therefore, we recommend that the foundations be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of

1,000 psf instead of the preliminary design bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. In addition, we recommend that the soil be excavated to a depth of 2 feet below bearing elevation (lower if needed) and replaced with compacted surge stone, shot-rock, or TDOT Graded Solid Rock up to bearing elevation. As an alternative to shallow foundations, steel H-Piles can be used. Additional information on these foundation systems is included in the following sub-sections.

3.4.1 Spread Footings

Based on the maximum abutment loads previously described, the exploration findings indicate that the structure can be supported by shallow spread footings and wall footings bearing on approved natural materials or on approved fill materials, provided that the recommendations in this report are followed. We recommend that the final subgrade in the foundation areas be evaluated via probing or other evaluation by a

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 11 of 17 representative of the geotechnical engineer. Over-excavation and replacement with compacted surge stone, shot rock, or TDOT Graded Solid Rock fill is recommended, as previously described.

We recommend a net allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf be used in the design of foundations bearing on approved materials. If soft or other unsuitable bearing conditions are observed during foundation construction, they should be thoroughly evaluated, and additional over-excavation or other remedial measures will be required. We recommend that foundations bear on consistent materials to reduce the risk of differential settlement.

Minimum strip and individual spread footing widths should be at least 18 inches and 24 inches wide, respectively. This recommendation is made to help prevent a "localized" or "punching" shear failure condition that could exist with very narrow footings. Foundations can be constructed at a minimum of 18 inches below subgrade. As previously noted, constructing the foundations at this depth provides confinement and protection against frost penetration.

Footings should be poured “neat” to the excavation so that water cannot collect behind forms before backfilling. Concrete should not be placed in standing water. Mud, water, loose materials, etc. should be removed from the bottom of foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing and concrete.

Excavations for foundations should be observed by a member of our staff prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. Mud mats can be used to help protect the bearing surface in the event there is a delay between the time the foundation is excavated and the concrete is placed (mud mats will not likely be required for foundations bearing on surge stone or shot rock fill; nevertheless, water should still be removed, if encountered at bearing elevation).

For foundations constructed in accordance with the recommendations in this report, settlement should be within tolerable limits. Total settlement is anticipated to be less than 1 inch, and differential settlement is anticipated to be ½ inch or less over a distance of about 10 feet for foundations bearing on approved material.

3.4.2 Passive Resistance for Shallow Foundations

If needed, a passive resistance for soil of 240 pcf (equivalent fluid unit weight) can be used, except that we recommend that the top foot of the soil be neglected in passive resistance calculations. We recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.40 be used between the base of concrete footings and stiff or medium dense soil and a coefficient of friction of 0.50 be used between base of concrete footings and compacted shot rock. If additional passive resistance is needed, the geotechnical engineer can provide additional recommendations for parameters.

3.4.3 Steel H-Piles

One option for the abutment foundations is driven steel H-piles. The subsurface soils were generally loose sands down to 35 feet at abutment locations, which was the termination depth of our deepest boring. We anticipate piles will not encounter practical refusal within the tested depth and piles should be driven to a depth of at least 35 feet below existing grade. We anticipate pile caps will be around 3 to 6 feet below grade. The designer should factor in final finished grades of the site when determining final pile lengths.

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 12 of 17

The table below includes ultimate and allowable capacities for HP12x53 piles, assuming 35 feet length, a yield strength of 50 ksi, negligible moment, and that piles are fully braced along their lengths. Settlement is expected to be less than one inch total. We anticipate differential settlement of the cap will be ½ inch or less over the width of the pedestrian bridge. The axial compressive capacity of pile groups will be the sum of the individual pile capacities, assuming piles are spaced at least 3 pile diameters (center to center) apart.

Capacities for additional pile types and sizes can be provided on request.

Pile Length (ft)

Ultimate Pile

Compressive

Resistance

(tons)

Allowable Pile

Compressive

Resistance

(tons, assuming F.S. = 2)

Tension Uplift Resistance

Resistance

(tons, assuming F.S. = 3)

HP 12 x 53 35 56 28 19

We recommend a minimum of one test pile at each bent be installed. In addition, the geotechnical engineer or their representative should be present during the installation of the test piles. The piles should be dynamically monitored during installation in accordance with ASTM D4945, “Standard Test Method for

High-Strain Dynamic Testing of Piles”. Test pile lengths should be manufactured with a minimum additional

5 feet to allow gage attachment for the dynamic tests.

Once a pile size and contractor’s driving system are determined, a wave equation analysis of piles (WEAP) should be performed. The analysis will determine if the selected hammer has sufficient energy to install the selected pile to the required depth without overstressing the pile. Upon request, GMC can assist in evaluating the selected hammer and determining the pile driving criteria.

We recommend any shallow excavations around new piles for the installation of utilities be properly backfilled and compacted as described in Section 3.3. We recommend the use of crane mats when cranes are within 10 feet of new piles to reduce ground pressures and subgrade restoration.

An engineering technician, supervised by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Tennessee, should monitor and document the production pile installations. A pile driving record should be kept for each individual production pile with information describing pile type, pile size, pile length, installation date and time, pile blow counts per 1-foot, installation notes, relevant hammer information, and relevant cushion information.

3.4.4 Parameters for Use in Lateral Analysis of Piles

One type of analysis that can be performed for lateral loading is using the commercially available computer program, L-Pile®. The recommended lateral analysis parameters are provided below.

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 13 of 17

Material for

Modeling

Purposes

Approx.

Depth

Below

Existing

Ground

Surface

Effective Unit

Weight1

(submerged unit weight)

Undrained

Shear

Strength

(psf)

Effective

Angle of

Internal

Friction, ϕ’

(degrees)

E50 or qu

(see Note 2)

Subgrade

Modulus, k

(pci)

Soft Clay 0 to 5 feet 120 pcf

(57.6 pcf) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Loose Sand

(Reese) 5 to 9 feet

120 pcf

(57.6 pcf) N/A 29 N/A 20

Soft Clay 9 to 17 feet 120 pcf

(57.6 pcf) 450 N/A 0.020 30

Loose Sand

(Reese) 17 to 35 feet

120 pcf

(57.6 pcf) N/A 29 N/A 20

1 Use first value above water table and value in parentheses below water table.

3.4.5 Scour

We recommend that any below grade bridge elements (or retaining wall elements, if applicable) constructed in scour prone areas be extended to a depth of at least 2 feet below potential scour depth.

3.5 Seismic

Based on our exploration and knowledge of the site geology, we recommend a Seismic Site Class of “D” for this site. The following subsections include recommended seismic design parameters using both AASHTO and IBC 2018 for a site located at an approximate Latitude of 35.62100278 N and an approximate Longitude of 88.81821944 W.

3.5.1 Parameters using AASHTO

We have determined the peak ground acceleration (PGA), short and long term spectral accelerations (Ss and

S1), and 5% damped design response spectrum accelerations (As, SDS, and SD1) using the USGS website.

Please refer to AASHTO Table 3.10.3.1-1 for more information.

Table 3.5.1: Ground Motion Parameters “Site Class D” (AASHTO)

PGA As

Mapped Spectral

Response

Accelerations

(g)

5% Damping

Design Spectral

Response

Acceleration

(g)

0.261 g 0.334 g

SS 0.52 SDS 0.72

S1 0.142 SD1 0.317

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 14 of 17

3.5.2 Parameters using IBC 2018

GMC has also determined the design spectral response acceleration parameters in accordance with IBC

2018. The Mapped Reponses were estimated from the Ground Motion Parameter Calculator available from the United States Geological Survey. The design responses for the short (0.2 sec, SDS) and 1-second period

(SD1) are noted in bold on the right end of the following table.

Table 3.5.2: Ground Motion Parameters “Site Class D” (IBC 2018)

Period

(sec)

Mapped Spectral

Response

Accelerations

(g)

Values of Site

Coefficient for Site Class

Maximum Spectral

Response

Acceleration

Adjusted for Site

Class (g)

Design Spectral

Response

Acceleration

(g)

Reference

(IBC)

Figures 1613.3.1

(1) & (2)

Tables 1613.3.3

(1) & (2)

Eqs. 16-37 &

16-38

Eqs. 16-39 &

16-40

0.2 SS 0.742 Fa 1.207 SMS=FaSs 0.895

SDS=2/3

SMS

0.597

1.0 S1 0.271 Fv

*Null-see

Section

11.4.8 of

IBC

SM1=FvS1

*Null-see

Section

11.4.8 of

IBC

SD1=2/3

SM1

*Null- see

Section

11.4.8 of

IBC

*Please note that for Site Class D, additional analysis will be required by the structural engineer at this site.

3.6 Retaining Walls

We understand that retaining walls for the site will primarily consist of fill walls. Wall types are not known at this time, but we anticipate walls will primarily be Redi-Rock (or MSE-type) walls that are designed by the contractor. Below grade walls must be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures that will be induced by the weight of the backfill materials (including sloped backfills, if applicable), hydrostatic pressures on the walls and any adjacent slab or pavement surcharge loads exerted on the walls. It is recommended that the walls be supported by footings and backfilled with a free draining material such as crushed stone or clean sand. A drainage system should be provided near or at the base of the walls to collect and remove groundwater and to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures.

Walls restrained at the top, supporting structures or otherwise movement sensitive, should be designed for

"at rest" earth pressure conditions. Walls that are free to deflect should be designed for "active" earth pressure conditions. The "passive" earth pressure state should be used for soils supporting the retaining structure, such as toe backfill. Relatively free-draining crushed stone or sand should be used as backfill. The following table presents recommended values of earth pressure coefficients for the select backfill materials:

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 15 of 17

Soil Parameter Backfill Type

SM / SC GW, GP SP, SW

Soil Unit Weight (moist) 120 130 128

Angle of Internal Friction, Ф, deg 31 39 37

At rest Pressure Coefficient, Ko 0.48 0.37 0.40

Active Pressure Coefficient, Ka 0.32 0.22 0.25

Passive Pressure Coefficient, Kp 2.0* 2.0* 2.0*

If on-site soils are planned as backfill material, the parameters from laboratory results (see Table 2.3) can be used in the design. However, we recommend the more conservative of those numbers and the ‘SM/SC’ column above for long term considerations of walls/slopes and the total stress parameters (cohesion only from direct shear tests or unconfined compression results) for short term considerations of walls/slopes.

Samples of all proposed backfill material should be evaluated for use as backfill. The design values and recommendations presented above assume that the backfill behind the wall will be horizontal with no surcharge loads and that a permanent drainage system will be installed behind the retaining wall to prevent the development of hydrostatic pressures. The backfill should extend upward from the top of the footing on a line 35 degrees from the vertical. We recommend that the top foot of material be neglected when calculating passive resistance. In addition, we recommend a maximum passive pressure coefficient of 2.0 as noted in the table above.

An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf should be used for the design of the retaining wall footings constructed on engineered fills or approved natural soils. Some over-excavation and replacement or other remedial measures may be required during construction. For analysis of sliding resistance of the base of the retaining walls, the ultimate coefficient of friction may be taken as 0.4 between concrete and stiff or medium dense soil.

The soils used behind the walls should be reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to their placement. Using a select material can significantly reduce the horizontal loads on the wall as well as improve the effectiveness of the wall drainage system. Compaction of backfill behind walls should be performed by appropriate manual equipment. The wall should be properly braced, as needed, and heavy equipment should not be allowed behind the wall. No equipment or construction loads should be allowed within 10 feet of retaining walls of half the distance of the freestanding wall-height. This will help prevent any surcharge loads from adding lateral earth pressures above that previously recommended to the retaining wall.

Retaining walls should be braced, as needed, during any backfilling operations and monitored for movement. If the footing construction precedes the subgrade preparation, then the footings should either be embedded below the subgrade a sufficient distance to achieve the required horizontal component or the footing should include a shear key to prevent movement.

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 16 of 17

The above values and recommendations are particularly applicable for a conventional cantilevered retaining wall. However, the soil shear strength parameters above and from the laboratory test results in

Table 2.3 (ϕ, C) can also be used by others for the global stability analyses and wall design, as applicable, based on materials expected in wall areas. The wall designer should determine if additional exploration, testing, or assessment is required for the design.

GMC Project No. GNAS250061 Page 17 of 17

4.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained by GMC and design details furnished for the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, we should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation or other recommendations are required. If GMC is not retained to perform these functions, GMC cannot be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the performance of the project.

The findings, recommendations, specifications, and/or professional advice contained in this report have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or expressed.

After the plans and specifications are more complete, the geotechnical engineer should be provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to check that our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents. At that time, it may be necessary to submit revised and/or supplementary recommendations.

We emphasize that this report was prepared for design and informational purposes only and may not be sufficient to prepare an accurate construction budget. Contractors reviewing this report should acknowledge that the recommendations contained herein are for design and informational purposes only.

The recommendations in this report are only applicable to areas within the vicinity of our exploration and should not be used for other areas or for structures not specifically addressed in this report.

APPENDIX

Site Location Plan

Exploration Location Plan

Soil Classification Chart

Exploration Records

Results of Laboratory Testing

SITE VICINITY PLAN

Central Creek Stream Restoration

GNAS250061

LEGEND

Approximate Site Location

P. Collins 12-05-2025

Base Aerial is from Google Earth

BORING LOCATION PLAN

GNAS250061

LEGEND

20’ SPT Boring

35’ SPT Boring

P. Collins 12-05-2025

H-01

P-01

P-02

P-03

B-06

B-07

B-02

B-03

B-04

B-05

Series of “Sinkholes” that have occurred between

October 2021 and February 2025, based on historical aerial images from Google Earth

Sinkhole recently occurred at old Wind Sock

Base Aerial is from Google Earth

H-01

H-01 H-01

H-01 H-01

H-01 H-01

H-01 H-01

H-01 H-01

H-01 H-01 H-03

IR-01

H-10

H-04

HP-01

MOB-01

MOB-01

RW-03

RW-02

RW-01

BORING LOCATION PLAN

GNAS250061

LEGEND

20’ SPT Boring

35’ SPT Boring

P. Collins 12-05-2025

H-01

P-01

P-02

P-03

B-06

B-07

B-02

B-03

B-04

B-05

Series of “Sinkholes” that have occurred between

October 2021 and February 2025, based on historical aerial images from Google Earth

Sinkhole recently occurred at old Wind Sock

Base Aerial is from Google Earth

H-01

H-01 H-01

H-01 H-01

H-01 H-01

H-01 H-01

H-01 H-01

H-01 H-01 H-03

IR-01

H-10

H-04

BA-01

HP-01

MOB-01

MOB-01

RW-03

RW-10

BA-02 RW-04

RW-04

RW-04

RW-12

RW-11

RW-10

RW-09RW-08

RW-07

RW-06RW-05RW-04

GRAVEL

AND

GRAVELLY

SOILS

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

CLAY MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO

FINES

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS

LETTERGRAPH

SYMBOLS

MAJOR DIVISIONS

COARSE

GRAINED

SOILS

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO

FINES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE

OR NO FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

SILT MIXTURES

CLEAN

GRAVELS

GRAVELS WITH

FINES

CLEAN SANDS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITH

FINES

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT

GREATER THAN 50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY

CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR

SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

SILTS

AND

CLAYS

MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN

NO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN

NO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION

PASSING ON NO.

4 SIEVE

MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION

RETAINED ON NO.

4 SIEVE

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)

(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

FINE

GRAINED

SOILS

SAND

AND

SANDY

SOILS

SILTS

AND

CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO

HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

LEAN CLAY (CL), brown-black, soft, some sand, organics, moist

SILTY SAND (SM), gray-orange, medium, moist

SILTY SAND (SM), gray-orange, very loose to loose, moist

No Recovery

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), yellow-brown, loose, wet

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

2-2-2 (4)

9-13-13 (26)

5-6-5 (11)

1-1-2 (3)

2-4-3 (7)

0-1-4 (5)

2-3-2 (5)

16 12

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION 388 ft

LOGGED BY D. Simmons

DRILLING METHOD CME 45, Auto-Hammer, HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING None Encountered

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 3.25"

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Blackburn Drilling, LLC GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY P. Collins

DATE STARTED 12/14/25 COMPLETED 12/14/25

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X P

LA

S

T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

E X

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

D E

P T

H (f t)

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

(Continued Next Page)

BORING NUMBER BA-01

CLIENT Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER GNAS250061

PROJECT NAME Central Creek Stream Restoration

PROJECT LOCATION Jackson, TN

1.

G

M C

B O

R

IN

G S

G N

A S

C E

N T

R A

L C

R E

E K

S T

R E

A M

R E

S T

O R

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

M C

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/3

/2

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), yellow-brown, loose, wet (continued)

Boring was terminated at 35.0 feet.

SS

SS

2-2-3 (5)

1-1-4 (5)

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X P

LA

S

T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

E X

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

D E

P T

H (f t)

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

BORING NUMBER BA-01

CLIENT Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER GNAS250061

PROJECT NAME Central Creek Stream Restoration

PROJECT LOCATION Jackson, TN

1.

G

M C

B O

R

IN

G S

G N

A S

C E

N T

R A

L C

R E

E K

S T

R E

A M

R E

S T

O R

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

M C

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/3

SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), brown-black, very soft, some organics, moist

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), brown-black, loose, moist

LEAN CLAY (CL), gray, soft to very soft, wet

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), gray, very loose, wet

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

2-1-1 (2)

2-3-3 (6)

1-3-5 (8)

1-2-2 (4)

1-1-1 (2)

1-1-2 (3)

2-1-2 (3)

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION 391 ft

LOGGED BY D. Simmons

DRILLING METHOD CME 45, Auto-Hammer, HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING 18.50 ft / Elev 372.50 ft

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 3.25"

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Blackburn Drilling, LLC GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY P. Collins

DATE STARTED 12/13/25 COMPLETED 12/13/25

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X P

LA

S

T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

E X

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

D E

P T

H (f t)

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

(Continued Next Page)

BORING NUMBER BA-02

CLIENT Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER GNAS250061

PROJECT NAME Central Creek Stream Restoration

PROJECT LOCATION Jackson, TN

1.

G

M C

B O

R

IN

G S

G N

A S

C E

N T

R A

L C

R E

E K

S T

R E

A M

R E

S T

O R

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

M C

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/3

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), gray, very loose, wet (continued)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), brown, medium, wet

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), brown, very loose, wet

Boring was terminated at 35.0 feet.

SS

SS

12-15-13 (28)

0-0-4 (4)

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X P

LA

S

T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

E X

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

D E

P T

H (f t)

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

BORING NUMBER BA-02

CLIENT Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER GNAS250061

PROJECT NAME Central Creek Stream Restoration

PROJECT LOCATION Jackson, TN

1.

G

M C

B O

R

IN

G S

G N

A S

C E

N T

R A

L C

R E

E K

S T

R E

A M

R E

S T

O R

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

M C

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/3

SANDY SILT (ML), brown, stiff, moist

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, medium, moist

Auger refusal was encountered at 5.5 feet.

SS

SS

3-4-9 (13)

9-14-9 (23)

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION 413 ft

LOGGED BY D. Simmons

DRILLING METHOD CME 45, Auto-Hammer, HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING None Encountered

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 3.25"

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Blackburn Drilling, LLC GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY P. Collins

DATE STARTED 12/13/25 COMPLETED 12/13/25

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X P

LA

S

T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

E X

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

D E

P T

H (f t)

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

BORING NUMBER RW-01

CLIENT Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER GNAS250061

PROJECT NAME Central Creek Stream Restoration

PROJECT LOCATION Jackson, TN

1.

G

M C

B O

R

IN

G S

G N

A S

C E

N T

R A

L C

R E

E K

S T

R E

A M

R E

S T

O R

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

M C

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/3

SANDY SILT (ML), brown, stiff, moist

SILTY SAND (SM), red, dense to medium, moist

Boring was terminated at 20.0 feet.

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

3-4-9 (13)

10-16-15 (31)

5-6-7 (13)

5-9-7 (16)

3-9-9 (18)

2-6-8 (14)

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION 411 ft

LOGGED BY D. Simmons

DRILLING METHOD CME 45, Auto-Hammer, HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING None Encountered

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 3.25"

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Blackburn Drilling, LLC GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY P. Collins

DATE STARTED 12/13/25 COMPLETED 12/13/25

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X P

LA

S

T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

E X

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

D E

P T

H (f t)

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

BORING NUMBER RW-02

CLIENT Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER GNAS250061

PROJECT NAME Central Creek Stream Restoration

PROJECT LOCATION Jackson, TN

1.

G

M C

B O

R

IN

G S

G N

A S

C E

N T

R A

L C

R E

E K

S T

R E

A M

R E

S T

O R

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

M C

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/3

SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), brown-black, firm, some fine sand, organics, moist

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, medium, moist

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), red-brown, medium, moist

- gray

Boring was terminated at 20.0 feet.

SS

ST

SS

SS

SS

SS

342-3-2 (5)

5-6-6 (12)

6-15-14 (29)

3-7-8 (15)

3-6-9 (15)

16 14

NOTES - proctor sample 1'-5'

GROUND ELEVATION 407 ft

LOGGED BY D. Simmons

DRILLING METHOD CME 45, Auto-Hammer, HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING None Encountered

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 3.25"

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Blackburn Drilling, LLC GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY P. Collins

DATE STARTED 12/13/25 COMPLETED 12/13/25

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X P

LA

S

T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

E X

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

D E

P T

H (f t)

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

BORING NUMBER RW-03

CLIENT Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER GNAS250061

PROJECT NAME Central Creek Stream Restoration

PROJECT LOCATION Jackson, TN

1.

G

M C

B O

R

IN

G S

G N

A S

C E

N T

R A

L C

R E

E K

S T

R E

A M

R E

S T

O R

A T

IO

N

.G P

J G

M C

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/3

SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), brown-black, firm, some fine sand, organics, moist

LEAN CLAY (CL), red-brown, stiff, some sand, moist

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, loose to medium, moist

6" gray clay interbedded

Boring was terminated at 20.0 feet.

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

2-3-4 (7)

2-2-3 (5)

3-4-5 (9)

2-4-5 (9)

6-8-7 (15)

5-6-9 (15)

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION 404 ft

LOGGED BY D. Simmons

DRILLING METHOD CME 45, Auto-Hammer, HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING None Encountered

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 3.25"

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Blackburn Drilling, LLC GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY P. Collins

DATE STARTED 12/19/25 COMPLETED 12/19/25

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X…