Appendix_A.pdf

Appendix A

NRCS Streambank Plant Material

For clarification purposes, document is hereby dated 2 April 2015

Plant Materials Program Plant Materials Technical Note - No. 1

January 2007

Plant Species with Rooting Ability from Live Hardwood Materials for use in Soil Bioengineering Techniques

Introduction Choosing the best plant for soil bioengineering techniques can be extremely important. The correct plant will insure the required performance in any slope stabilization project. This Technical Note supports NRCS documents: Engineering Field Manual-Chapters 16 and 18, The Stream Corridor Restoration Handbook, and the National Employee Development Centers Soil Bioengineering course.

How to Use this Technical Note The list of species is prepared to assist with selecting plants for use in the application of soil bioengineering techniques. The list may also function as a tool to indicate the performance of a species in a specific soil bioengineering technique in a specific region of the country. The Species List is organized alphabetically according to rooting ability of the species.

Table 1: Species with very good to excellent rooting ability from live hardwood materials Table 2: Species with fair to good rooting ability from live hardwood materials Table 3: Species useful for the Caribbean Area and Hawaii Table 4: Region of Adaptation Codes for Tables 1-3

Tables 1-3 contain the following information:

Scientific Name Common Name Cultivar or Ecotype Region of Adaptation Rooting Ability Soil Bioengineering Technique

Species Lists are not intended as recommendations of plants for specific projects. Consult with your NRCS state specialists for specifications for specific project recommendations.

Table 1: Species with very good to excellent rooting ability from live hardwood materials

Scientific Name Common Name Cultivar or Ecotype Region of

Adaptation Rooting Ability Soil Bioengineering Technique

Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum local collections 9 very good fascines, live stakes, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Populus balsamifera balsam poplar local collections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, O, A very good live stakes, poles, live cuttings Populus balsamifera ssp trichocarpa black cottonwood local collections 4, 8, 9, 0, A very good live stakes, poles, live cuttings Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood local collections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 very good live stakes, poles, live cuttings Salix alaxensis feltleaf willow local collections A very good live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Salix amygdaloides peachleaf willow local collections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 very good live stakes, poles, posts, live cuttings Salix barclayi Barclay's willow local collections A very good live stakes, poles, posts, live cuttings

Salix boothii booth willow local collections 7, 8, 9, 0 excellent fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix brachycarpa barren ground willow local collections A very good live stakes, poles, posts, live cuttings

Salix cottetii dwarf willow Bankers Introduced 1, 2, 3 very good fascines, live stakes, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix discolor pussy willow local collections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 very good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix drummondiana Drummond's willow local collections 7, 8, 9, 0 very good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix eriocephala Missouri River willow local collections 7, 8, 9, 0 very good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix eriocephala spp.

ligulifolia erect willow Placer 9, 0* excellent fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix sessilifolia Nutt.

northwest sandbar willow Multnomah 9* excellent fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix sessilifolia Nutt.

northwest sandbar willow local collections 9 very good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix geyeriana Geyer's willow local collections 7, 8, 9, 0 very good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix gooddingii Goodding's willow local collections 6, 7, 8, 0 very good live stakes, poles, posts, live cuttings

Salix hookeriana hooker willow Clatsop 9, 0* excellent fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix hookeriana hooker willow local collections 9, 0 very good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix interior sandbar willow Greenbank 1, 3, 4, 5 excellent fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Region of

Adaptation Rooting Ability Soil Bioengineering Technique

Salix interior sandbar willow local collections 1, 3, 4, 5 very good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix laevigata red willow local collections 7, 8, 9, 0 very good live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Rogue 9, 0 excellent fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow local collections 6, 7, 8, 9, 0 very good live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Salix lemmonii Lemmon's willow Palouse 8, 9, 0 very good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix lemmonii Lemmon's willow local collections 8, 9, 0 very good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix ligulifolia strapleaf willow local collections 8, 9, 0 very good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix lucida ssp.

lasiandra Pacific willow local collections 7, 8, 9, 0, A excellent live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Salix melanopsis coyote willow (green stem) local collections 8, 9, 0 excellent fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix pentandra laurel willow Aberdeen Selection introduced 8, 9, 0 excellent live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Salix purpurea purpleosier willow Streamco Introduced 1, 2, 3 excellent fascines, live stakes, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix sericea silky willow Riverbend Germplasm 1, 2, 3 excellent fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix sericea silky willow local collections 1, 2, 3 very good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix sitchensis Sitka willow Plumas 9, 0* very good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix sitchensis Sitka willow local collections 9, 0, A very good fascines, brush mattress, brush layer Sambucus nigra ssp.canadensis common elderberry local collections

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 0, A very good fascines, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Table 2: Species with fair to good rooting ability from live hardwood materials.

Adaptation Rooting Ability Soil Bioengineering Technique

Baccharis pilularis coyotebrush local collections 7, 9, 0 fair fascines, live stakes, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Baccharis salicifolia Mule's fat local collections 6, 7, 8, 0 fair fascines, live stakes, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Keystone 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 0 good brush mattress, live stakes, brush layering, fascines

Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush local collections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 0 fair brush mattress, live stakes, brush layering, fascines

Cornus amomum silky dogwood Indigo 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 good fascines, live stakes, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Cornus amomum silky dogwood local collections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 fair fascines, live stakes, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Cornus sericea redosier dogwood Ruby 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 0, A good fascines, live stakes, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Cornus sericea redosier dogwood local collections 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 0, A fair fascines, live stakes, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Cornus sericea ssp occidentalis western redosier dogwood Mason 9, 0* good fascines, live stakes, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Cornus sericea ssp occidentalis western redosier dogwood local collections 9, 0, A good fascines, live stakes, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Lonicera involucrata black twinberry local collections 3, 7, 8, 9, 0, A good live stakes, fascines, brush layering, live cuttings

Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum local collections 9 very good fascines, live stakes, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Philadelphus lewisii Lewis' mock orange local collections 9, 0 fair fascines, live cuttings

Physocarpus capitatus Pacific ninebark local collections 9 fair live stakes, fascines, brush layering, live cuttings Physocarpus opulifolius common ninebark local collections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 fair fascines, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Populus angustifolia narrowleaf cottonwood local collections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0 fair live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood local collections 6, 7, 8, 0 fair live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Rubus spectabilis salmonberry local collections 8, 9, 0 fair fascines, live cuttings Salix alba white willow local collections 1, 2, 3, 4 fair live stakes, poles, posts, live cuttings

Salix bebbiana Bebb willow local collections 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 0, A fair live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Salix drummondiana Drummond's willow Curlew 7, 8, 9, 0 good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush

Region of

Adaptation Rooting Ability Soil Bioengineering Technique

Salix drummondiana Drummond's willow local collections 7, 8, 9, 0 fair fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix exigua coyote willow Silvar 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, A good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix exigua sp interior sandbar willow (grey stem) local collections 6, 7, 8, 9 fair fascines, live cuttings, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, Salix humilis prairie willow local collections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 fair fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix lucida shining willow local collections 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 0, A fair fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix lutea yellow willow local collections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 0 fair fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix nigra black willow local collections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 fair fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix planifolia plainleaf willow local collections 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 0, A fair fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Salix prolixa Mackenzie's willow local collections 8, 9, 0, A fair live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Salix scouleriana Scouler's willow local collections 9, 0 fair fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Sambucus racemosa red elderberry local collections 9 fair brush layering, live cuttings Spiraea douglasii Douglas spirea Bashaw 9* fair fascines, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings Spiraea douglasii Douglas spirea local collections 0, 9 fair fascines, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Symphoricarpos albus common snowberry local collections 9 fair fascines, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Table 3: Species useful for the Caribbean Area and Hawaii

Adaptation Rooting Ability Soil Bioengineering Technique

Batis maritima Barilla, Saltwort local collections C, H good brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings Bucida buceras úcar, gregre local collections C fair live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Bursera simaruba almácigo, turpentine tree local collections C good live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Clusia rosea Cupey local collections C, H good live stakes, poles, live cuttings Commelina ssp. cihítre local collections C good brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings Cordia sebestenea vomitel, geiger tree local collections C, H fair live stakes, poles, live cuttings Cordyline terminalis Ti local collections H good cutting, poles, live stakes

Erythrina poeppigiana

Bucayo, bucare, mountain immortale local collections C, H good live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Erythrina variegata Tall Erythrina Tropic Coral H good cutting, poles, live stakes

Glyricidia sepium Mata ratón, Glyricidia local collections C, H good live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Hibiscus spp. Hibiscos local collections C, H good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Hymenocallis caribaea Lirio blanco, Spyder lilly local collections C fair brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Lagerstroemia indica astromelia local collections C good fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Mangrove species

(Rhizophora, Avicenia, Conocarpus) local collections C, H good live stakes, poles, live cuttings

Nicolaia elatior Flor de cera, Torch ginger local collections C fair brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Pictetia aculeata Fustic local collections C fair fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Polyscias guifoylei Panax local collections H good live cuttings, poles, live stakes Rhoeo spathacea Sanguinaria local collections C, H good brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings Sansevieria hyacinthoides

Lengua de chucho, sweet Sansevieria local collections C good brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Sphagneticola trilobata

Margarita, Bay Biscayne creeping oxeye local collections C fair brush mattress, brush layering, live cuttings

Zingiber spp. Jengibre, Ginger local collections C, H fair fascines, live stakes, poles, brush mattress, brush

Table 4: Region or Adaptation Codes for Tables 1-3

Codes Region

1 Northeast (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, PA, NJ, DE, MD, VA, OH , WV, KY) 2 Southeast (NC, SC, GA, FL, TN, AL, MS, LA, AR 3 North Central (MO, IA, MN, MI, WI, IL, IN) 4 North Plains (ND, SD, MT eastern, WY eastern) 5 Central Plains (NE, KS, CO eastern) 6 South Plains (TX, OK) 7 Southwest (AZ, NM) 8 Intermountain (NV, UT, CO western) 9 Northwest (WA, OR, ID, MT western, WY western) 0 California A Alaska C Caribbean H Hawaii

* (Adaptation limited to an area west of the Cascades in OR and WA and northwest

CA)

Glossary

Brush Layering: Live hardwood material (usually dormant) laid in a crisscross fashion in a gently slopped soil bench. The soil bench is usually part of successive lifts of soil.

Brush Mattress: Live hardwood material (usually dormant) laid in a crisscross fashion and staked down on a slope in combination with live stakes and live fascines. Soil is placed over and tamped in and around the stems.

Fascines: Live hardwood material (usually dormant) made into sausage-like bundles tied together. Length and diameter of a fascine is dependent on usage.

Live Cuttings: Live hardwood material (usually dormant) of woody shrub and tree species.

Live Stakes: Live hardwood material (usually dormant) of woody species cut to specified lengths depending on soil and site conditions.

Poles: Live main stem hardwood material (usually dormant) of woody shrub and/or tree species with apical bud in tack.

Soil Bioengineering: A system of living plant materials used as structural components. Live hardwood material (usually dormant) of woody shrub and tree species use to repair slope failures and to increase slope stability. The live hardwood materials serve as primary structural components, drain and barriers to earth movement.

References

Hoag, J.C. 1992. Planting techniques from the Aberdeen, ID, plant materials center for vegetating shorelines and riparian areas. In Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities, pp. 165-166. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-289.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS). 1992. Soil Bioengineering for Upland Slope Protection and Erosion Reduction. In Engineering Field Handbook, Part 650, Chapter 18.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS). 1996. Streambank and Shoreline Protection. In Engineering Field Handbook, Part 650, Chapter 16.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS). 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration Handbook.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS). 2000-2006. National Employees Development Center, Soil Bioengineering Course.

There may be other plant species that perform well in soil bioengineering techniques. If you know of a species that is not listed, please contact David W. Burgdorf, Plant Materials Specialist, for consideration of its addition to the list.

Prepared By:

David W. Burgdorf Plant Materials Specialist Natural Resources Conservation Service East Lansing, MI 48823 dave.burgdorf@mi.usda.gov 517-641-7831

Contributors: Christopher Miller, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, New Jersey

Stoney Wright, PMC Manager, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska Carlos E. Morganti, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Puerto Rico Dale Darris, PMC Conservation Agronomist, NRCS, Oregon Chris Hoag, PMC Wetland Plant Ecologist, NRCS, Idaho Glenn Sakamoto. PMC Manager, NRCS, Hawaii Rose Lake Plant Materials Center, East Lansing, MI

Last Revised: December 7, 2006

For More Information:

Natural Resources Conservation Service: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov NRCS Plant Materials Program: http://Plant-Materials.nrcs.usda.gov

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250- 9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Appendix B

Geotechnical Report

Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Culvert at Rotten Wood Creek

Dobbins AFB Near Ridenour Drive and Gym Road

July 30, 2014 Terracon Project No. 49145043

Prepared For:

CEMS Engineering, Inc.

Ladson, South Carolina

Prepared By:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Atlanta, Georgia

Dobbins Air Force Base Proposed Culvert at Rotten Wood Creek Cobb County, Georgia July 30, 2014 Terracon Project No. 49145043

Responsive Resourceful Reliable

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

2.2 Site Location and Description

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

3.2 Typical Subsurface Profile

3.3 Groundwater

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

4.2 Earthwork

4.2.1 Site Preparation

4.2.2 Materials Types

4.2.3 Compaction Requirements

4.2.4 Grading and Drainage

4.2.5 Earthwork Construction Considerations

4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

4.3.1 Lateral Earth Pressure Design Recommendations

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS– continued

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Plan Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Description Boring Logs B-1 and B-2

APPENDIX B – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit B-1 General Notes Exhibit B-2 Unified Soil Classification System

Responsive Resourceful Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the proposed culvert at Rotten Wood Creek located near Ridenour Drive and Gym Road at Dobbins Air Force Base in Cobb County, Georgia.

Terracon’s geotechnical scope of work included the advancement of two soil test borings to an approximate depth of 30 feet below existing site grades.

The following geotechnical considerations were identified:

The borings encountered 3 to 5 feet of fill underlain by alluvial soil extending to about 18 to 18 ½ feet (934 to 935 feet) below the existing ground surface. Below the alluvial soils, the borings encountered residual soils underlain by Partially Weathered Rock at a depth of about 23 feet (Elevation 930 feet). We understand the creek bottom is at an elevation 945 feet. Groundwater was encountered in the borings at a depth of about 8 feet (elevation 945 feet).

We understand the box culvert will be filled with soil to a depth of 20 inches to address scour concerns. Therefore, the culvert will bear around elevation 943 feet which is below the existing water table. The creek will be diverted for this project; however, groundwater control will be needed. Traditionally September through November is a dry time of the year in Georgia; therefore, consideration should be given to forming construction during this timeframe.

At the time of construction, groundwater must be lowered and continuously maintained at a minimum depth of at least 3 feet below the deepest point of excavation to permit subgrade preparation, excavation and construction. The dewatering system should be installed and operational prior to excavation beneath the water table. The dewatering system should remain in continuous operation until installation is complete.

Since dewatering system construction is partially dependent on the technique and experience of the contractor, we believe the system should only be installed by a contractor with a minimum of 5 years of experience in dewatering system design and installation. Design flexibility should be allowed for the specialty contractor to choose the most appropriate dewatering system, including the well depths and spacing, if needed.

Following undercutting to reach the culvert subgrade elevation, stabilization of the water softened subgrade will be needed using filter fabric and crushed stone in order to provide a stable base. The actual extent and nature of the required remedial measures can best be determined in the field at the time of construction. We recommend budgeting for about 24 inches of mini surge stone (football/baseball size) capped with 6 to 8 inches of No. 57 stone. The stone should be underlain by a filter fabric such as Mirafi 170N which extends around the stone where it will be exposed.

Responsive Resourceful Reliable ii

Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to monitor this portion of the work.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PROPOSED CULVERT AT ROTTEN WOOD CREEK

NEAR RIDENOUR DRIVE AND GYM ROAD

COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA

Terracon Project No. 49145043 July 30, 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed culvert at Rotten Wood Creek located near Ridenour Drive and Gym Road in Cobb County, Georgia. Terracon’s geotechnical scope of work included the advancement of two soil test borings to an approximate depth of 30 feet below existing site grades. Boring Logs along with a Site Location Plan and Boring Location Plan are included in Appendix A of this report.

The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to the proposed culvert:

subsurface soil conditions groundwater conditions earthwork

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

Item Description

Site layout Refer to the Site Location Plan and Boring Location Plan (Exhibits A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A)

Structures Three 9x9 closed bottom culverts for a total of 12 linear feet.

Structure construction, Assumed Concrete culverts

Grading Culverts will be lowered 20 inches below the existing creek bed at an approximate elevation of 943.

Wing wall / retaining walls Wingwall/retaining wall crossing the creek will be approximately 50 feet in length and 10 feet high.

July 30, 2014 Terracon Project No.49145043

2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description

Location Proposed Culvert at Rotten Wood Creek in Cobb County, Georgia

Existing Improvements An existing gravel road and chain link fence.

Current ground cover Gravel, bare soils and weeds.

Existing topography Creek banks at an approximate elevation of 953 ft, sloping steeply down to the creek bed at 945 ft.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

The project site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of Georgia which is characterized by medium to high grade metamorphic rocks and scattered igneous intrusions.

The term metamorphic describes rocks that have been subjected to high temperatures and/or pressures, usually deep within the earth’s crust. These high temperatures and pressures cause the textural and mineralogical characteristics of the original rock to be altered and can also cause certain rock types to fully melt, becoming what is known as magma. Magma is less dense than the surrounding solidified rock and tends to move upward through fractures and joints, displacing the surrounding rock. This rock type is known as an igneous intrusion.

Metamorphic rocks are predominant in this region but, due to erosion and uplift, both of these rocks will eventually become exposed at the land surface.

The subsurface bedrock in this region has undergone differing rates of weathering, which often produces a considerable variation in depth to competent rock over short horizontal distances. It is also not unusual for lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially weathered rock to be present within the soil mantle above the general bedrock level. The typical residual soil profile consists of clayey soils near the surface, where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands, which often consist of saprolites (native soils which maintain the original fabric of the parent rock). Generally the soil becomes harder with depth to the top of parent crystalline rock or “massive bedrock” which occurs at depth.

The boundary between soil and rock is typically not sharply defined. A transitional zone termed "partially weathered rock" is normally found overlying bedrock. Partially weathered rock (PWR) is defined for engineering purposes as residual material with a standard penetration resistance exceeding 100 blows per foot (bpf).

3.2 Typical Subsurface Profile

Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Description Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum Material Encountered Consistency/Density

Stratum 1 3 to 5 feet Fill Medium Dense

Stratum 2 18 to 18 ½ feet Alluvium Very Loose to Loose

Stratum 3 23 feet Residuum Silty SAND Sandy SILT

Loose Stiff

Stratum 4 30 feet Partially Weathered Rock ---

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in Appendix B. Specific conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs included in Appendix A of this report.

3.3 Groundwater

The boreholes were observed while drilling and after completion for the presence and level of groundwater. In addition, delayed water levels were also obtained in some borings. The water levels observed in the boreholes are noted on the attached boring logs, and are summarized below:

Boring Number Depth to groundwater while drilling, ft.

Approximate Elevation of groundwater, ft.

B-1 7 946

B-1 8 945

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. In addition, perched water can develop over low permeability soil or rock strata. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

We recommend the box culverts be supported on a stone platform bearing on competent soils.

Geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of data presented herein, engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project.

4.2 Earthwork

The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented for design and construction of earth supported elements are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section.

Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project.

4.2.1 Site Preparation

We anticipate construction will be initiated with the installation of a groundwater control system.

Consideration should be taken to the time of construction as rain events could hinder the progress of construction. Based on soil surveys, September through November are the driest months in Georgia.

Following the installation of the water control system, construction will continue with stripping vegetation, and loose, soft or otherwise unsuitable material. Stripped materials consisting of vegetation and organic materials should be wasted off site, or used to vegetate landscaped areas or exposed slopes after completion of grading operations. Stripping depths between our boring locations and across the site could vary considerably as such we recommend actual stripping depths be evaluated by a representative of Terracon during construction to aid in preventing removal of excess material.

The sandy soils encountered in the borings will be sensitive to disturbance from construction activity and water seepage. If precipitation occurs prior to or during construction, the near-surface sandy soils could increase in moisture content and become more susceptible to disturbance. Construction activity should be monitored, and should be curtailed if the construction activity is causing subgrade disturbance. A Terracon representative can help with monitoring and developing recommendations to aid in limiting subgrade disturbance.

4.2.2 Materials Types

Engineered fill should consist of approved materials, free of organic material, debris and particles larger than about 4 inches. The maximum particle size criteria may be relaxed by the geotechnical engineer of record depending on construction techniques, material gradation, allowable lift thickness and observations during fill placement. Soils for use as engineered fill material should conform to the following specifications:

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

Fine Grain Soils CL and ML

(LL<45; PI<25)

All locations and elevations

Granular Soils SP, SM, SC, SW All locations and elevations

On-site soils2 SP, SM All locations and elevations

1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.

2. The soils at the site are wet and will require drying prior to use as engineered fill. Drying during wet times of the year will be difficult if at all possible. Therefore, it might be more cost effective to import material to backfill as needed.

4.2.3 Compaction Requirements

Recommended compaction and moisture content criteria for engineered fill materials are as follows:

Material Type and Location1, 2

Per the Standard Proctor Test (ASTM D 698)

Minimum Compaction

Requirement (%)

Range of Moisture Contents for Compaction3

Minimum Maximum

Acceptable soil or approved imported fill soils:

Beneath foundations and slabs: 95 -2% +3%

Beneath pavements: 95 -2% +3%

12 inches directly below pavements: 98 -2% +3%

Per the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D 1557)

Aggregate base (beneath slabs) 95 -3% +3%

Aggregate base (beneath pavements) 98 -3% +3%

1. Engineered fill materials should be placed in horizontal, loose lifts not exceeding 9 inches in thickness and should be thoroughly compacted. Where light compaction equipment is used, as is customary within a few feet of retaining walls and in utility trenches, the lift thickness may need to be reduced to achieve the desired degree of compaction. Soils removed which will be used as engineered fill should be protected to aid in preventing an increase in moisture content due to rain.

2. We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

3. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction to be achieved without pumping when proofrolled.

4.2.4 Grading and Drainage

Adequate positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the development to prevent an increase in moisture content of the base and backfill materials. Surface water drainage should be controlled to prevent undermining of fill slopes and structures during and after construction.

It is recommended that all exposed earth slopes be seeded to provide protection against erosion as soon as possible after completion. Seeded slopes should be protected until the vegetation is established.

4.2.5 Earthwork Construction Considerations

It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment.

Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture content. Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become frozen, desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to construction and observed by Terracon.

Surface water should not be allowed to pond on the site and soak into the soil during construction. Construction staging should provide drainage of surface water and precipitation away from the culvert and wall areas. Any water that collects over or adjacent to construction areas should be promptly removed, along with any softened or disturbed soils. Surface water control in the form of sloping surfaces, drainage ditches and trenches, and sump pits and pumps will be important to avoid ponding and associated delays due to precipitation and seepage.

Although the creek will be diverted, groundwater control will still be required. The groundwater must be lowered at least three feet below the deepest point of excavation to permit subgrade preparation, excavation and construction. The dewatering system should be installed and operational prior to excavation beneath the water table. The dewatering system should remain in continuous operation until installation is complete.

All excavations should be sloped or braced as required by OSHA regulations to provide stability and safe working conditions. Temporary excavations will probably be required during grading operations. The grading contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.

Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means, methods and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean that Terracon is assuming any responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied or inferred.

Our investigation did not include an analysis of slope stability for any temporary or permanent condition. However, in the Piedmont Physiographic Province region up to 15 to 20-foot tall slopes are regularly built at inclinations of up to 2(H):1(V) and perform satisfactory if properly constructed. Shallow sloughing at the surface can occur when slopes are not properly constructed and/or exposed to inclement weather prior to placement of vegetative cover.

Therefore, we recommend that fill slopes be over filled and cut back to develop an adequately compacted slope face rather than tracking in the slope face for compaction. In addition, for erosion protection, a protective vegetative cover should be established on permanent slopes as soon as possible. If steeper slopes are required for site development, stability analyses should be completed to design the grading plan.

4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

4.3.1 Lateral Earth Pressure Design Recommendations

The lateral earth pressure recommendations herein are applicable to the design of rigid retaining walls subject to slight rotation, such as cantilever, or gravity type concrete walls. These recommendations are not applicable to the design of modular block - geogrid reinforced backfill walls. Recommendations covering these types of wall systems are beyond the scope of services for this assignment. However, we would be pleased to develop recommendations for the design of such wall systems upon request.

Reinforced concrete walls with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall restraint conditions are shown. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The "at rest" condition assumes no wall movement. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls.

EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

Earth Pressure

Conditions

Coefficient For Backfill Type

Equivalent Fluid

Density (pcf)

Surcharge Pressure, p1

(psf)

Earth Pressure, p2

(psf)

Active (Ka) Granular - 0.29

Sandy silt/Silty Sand - 0.36

(0.29)S

(0.36)S

(35)H

(45)H

At-Rest (Ko) Granular - 0.46

Sandy silt/Silty Sand - 0.53

(0.46)S

(0.53)S

(55)H

(65)H

Passive (Kp) Granular - 3.4

Sandy silt/Silty Sand – 2.8

Applicable conditions to the above include:

For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of about

0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height

For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure In-situ soil backfill weight a maximum of 120 pcf Horizontal backfill, compacted between 95 and 98 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included No hydrostatic pressures acting on wall No dynamic loading No safety factor included in soil parameters Ignore passive pressure in frost zone

Backfill placed against structures should consist of granular soils or low plasticity cohesive soils.

For the granular values to be valid, the granular backfill must extend out from the base of the wall at an angle of at least 45 and 60 degrees from vertical for the active and passive cases, respectively. To calculate the resistance to sliding, a value of 0.35 should be used as the ultimate coefficient of friction between the footing and the underlying soil.

To aid in reducing the potential for hydrostatic pressure behind walls, we recommend a perimeter drain be installed at the foundation wall with a collection pipe leading to a reliable discharge. If adequate drainage is not possible, then combined hydrostatic and lateral earth pressures should be calculated for granular backfill using an equivalent fluid weighing 80 and 90 pcf for active and at-rest conditions, respectively. For silty backfill, an equivalent fluid weighing 85 and 95 pcf should be used for active and at-rest, respectively. These pressures do not include the influence of surcharge, equipment or floor loading, which should be added. Heavy equipment should not operate within a distance closer than the exposed height of retaining walls to prevent lateral pressures more than those provided.

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No.

Consulting Engineers and Scientists

EXHIBITSITE LOCATION PLAN

A-1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

CULVERT ON ROTTEN WOOD CREEK

NEAR RIDENOUR DRIVE AND GYM ROAD

DOBBINS AFB, COBB COUNTY, GA

JC

DWD

JC/MRF

TAB

49145043

AS SHOWN

GEO49145043-1

JULY 2014 2855 Premiere Parkway, Suite C Duluth, GA 30097

(770) 623-0755 (770) 623-9628

*INDICATES WHICH MAP SITE IS LOCATED ON

SITE

THIS DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

LEGEND

Project Mngr:

Approved By:

Checked By:

Drawn By:

Project No.

Scale:

Date:

File No. Consulting Engineers and Scientists

EXHIBITBORING LOCATION PLAN

A-2

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

CULVERT ON ROTTEN WOOD CREEK

NEAR RIDENOUR DRIVE AND GYM ROAD

DOBBINS AFB, COBB COUNTY, GA

JC

DWD

JC/MRF

TAB

49145043

AS SHOWN

GEO49145043-2

JULY 2014 2855 Premiere Parkway, Suite C Duluth, GA 30097

(770) 623-0755 (770) 623-9628

APPROXIMATE BORING

LOCATION

Approximate Scale

(Feet)

B-1

B-2

July 29, 2014 Terracon Project No.49145043

Responsive Resourceful Reliable Exhibit A-3

Field Exploration Description

The boring locations were staked by Terracon personnel. Distances from these locations to the reference features indicated on the attached diagram are approximate and were estimated.

Right angles for the boring location measurements were estimated. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them.

The borings were drilled with an atv-mounted rotary drill rig using hollow stem augers to advance the boreholes. Representative soil samples were obtained by the split-barrel sampling procedure. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler the last 12 inches of the typical total 18-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches, is the standard penetration resistance value (N). These values are indicted on the borings logs at the depths of occurrence. This value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The sampling depths and penetration distance, plus the standard penetration resistance values, are shown on the boring logs. The samples were sealed and taken to the laboratory for testing and classification.

Field logs of each boring were prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs included with this report represent an interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observation and tests of the samples.

The samples were classified in the laboratory based on visual observation, texture and plasticity. The descriptions of the soils indicated on the boring logs are in general accordance with the enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. Estimated group symbols according to the Unified Soil Classification System are given on the boring logs. A brief description of this classification system is attached to this report.

July 29, 2014 Terracon Project No.49145043

Responsive Resourceful Reliable Exhibit A-3

Laboratory Testing

As part of the testing program, all samples were examined in the laboratory by experienced personnel and classified in accordance with the attached General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System based on the texture and plasticity of the soils. The group symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is shown in the appropriate column on the boring logs and a brief description of the classification system is included with this report in the Appendix.

At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials.

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in this appendix. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards.

Selected soil samples obtained from the site were tested for the following engineering properties:

In-situ Water Content

3.0

18.5

23.0

30.0

FILL - SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, trace gravel and roots, brown, medium dense

ALLUVIAL - SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, trace clay, brown, gray, loose, wet

-gray, very loose

- brown, loose

RESIDUUM - SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, gray, white, loose, wet

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, fine grained, tan

- tan, brown

Boring Terminated at 30 Feet

3-4-6 N=10

2-3-2 N=5

2-1-2 N=3

1-1-4 N=5

1-2-2 N=4

3-4-4 N=8

50/3"

37-50/5" 50/5"

950+/-

934.5+/-

930+/-

923+/-

Hammer Type: Safety HammerStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

LOCATION

DEPTH

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G E

O S

M A

R T

L O

G -N

O W

E

LL

.G

P J

T E

M P

LA

T

E U

P D

A T

E

-3 1-

.G

P J

/3

0/

Rotten Wood Creek Dobbins Air Force Base, Cobb County, Georgia

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

2855 Premiere Parkway, Suite C Duluth, Georgia

Notes:

Project No.: 49145043

Drill Rig: CME-550

Boring Started: 7/16/2014

BORING LOG NO. B-1

CEMS Engineering, Inc.CLIENT:

Driller: Lee

Boring Completed: 7/16/2014

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures

See Appendix B for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

PROJECT: Culvert on Rotten Wood Creek

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Approximate…