Geo Report.pdf

Report of Geotechnical Exploration (Revision 1)

FSR 221 Peavine Sheeds Creek

Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

PREPARED FOR:

WSP USA, Inc.

13530 Dulles Technology Drive, Suite 300

Herndon, Virginia 20171

PREPARED BY:

S&ME, Inc.

4291 Highway 58

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37416

February 24, 2026

FSR 221 Peavine Sheeds Creek Road

Forest Service Road 221, Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

February 24, 2026 ii

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Project Description

3.0 Exploratory and Testing Procedures

3.1 Soil Test Borings

3.2 Laboratory Testing

4.0 Site, Geologic, and Subsurface Conditions

4.1 Site Conditions

4.2 Geologic Conditions

4.3 Subsurface Conditions

4.3.1 Surface Materials

4.3.2 Residual Soils

4.3.3 Auger Refusal Materials

5.0 Laboratory Testing

5.1 Laboratory Test Results Summary

5.2 Soil Corrosivity

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Earthwork

6.1.1 Stripping

6.1.2 Subgrade Evaluation

6.1.3 Difficult Excavation

6.1.4 Earth Material Utilization and Fill Placement

6.1.5 Fill Density Testing

6.1.6 Groundwater

6.2 Final Subgrade Preparation

6.3 Foundations

6.3.1 Box Culvert – Master Pin 77 / Mile Post 6.229

6.3.2 Retaining Wall – Master Pin 92 / Mile Post 7.84

6.3.3 Aquatic Organism Passage – Master Pin 179 / Mile Post 19.302

6.3.4 General Foundation Recommendations

Forest Service Road 221, Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

February 24, 2026 iii

6.4 Seismic Considerations (AASHTO 2020)

6.5 Corrosivity

7.0 Follow-Up Services

8.0 Limitations of Report

Appendix I Figures 1-3 – Site Location Plans

Figures 4-6 – Boring Location Plans

Appendix II Soil Log Legend

Rock Core Log Legend

Boring Logs

Figure 7 - Subsurface Profile – MP 7.84

Appendix III Lab Test Results

Appendix IV Site Photographs

Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

Forest Service Road 221, Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

February 24, 2026 1

1.0 Introduction

The primary purpose of our services was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site, provide laboratory testing, and provide a geotechnical engineering report including a retaining wall design. Plans for the retaining wall design will be submitted separately from this report. This report describes our understanding of the project, presents the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing, and discusses our conclusions and recommendations relative to the considerations discussed in this report. This report provides the following:

A summary of the project and provided information;

A summary of current site conditions, topography, and area geology;

A summary of the field exploration methods;

A summary of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings;

A summary of the laboratory test methods and results;

Recommendations for site preparation, including subgrade preparation, excavation, structural fill placement, and groundwater control;

Recommendations for foundation design and construction for each structure;

Results of slope stability analysis;

Seismic hazard analysis of the sites following AASHTO LRFD Section 3.10; and

An Appendix with Site Location Plans, Boring Location Plans, individual boring logs for each test boring, site photos, and individual laboratory test reports.

2.0 Project Description

Initial project information was provided through emails from and conversations with Mr. Matthew Martin of WSP.

Appended to the emails were the following document:

Design Scoping Report TN ERFO FS CHRK804 202-2 (1), by the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), May 2023.

Section B Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs, by FHWA (undated).

Section C Statement of Work, by FHWA (undated).

DGN files of the existing condition surveys for each site.

Based on the provided information, we understand there has been storm damage impacting Forest Service Road

221 (Peavine Sheeds Creek Road). Amongst the planned repairs are the replacement of a culvert at Mile Post

6.229, the construction of a retaining wall to repair a slope failure at Mile Post 7.84, and the construction of an aquatic organism passage (AOP) at Mile Post 19.302. Site Location Plans, Figures 1 through 3, are included in the

Appendix showing the general location of each of these sites.

Based on provided information, we understand the proposed box culvert located at Mile Post 6.229 will be a precast concrete structure bearing on shallow foundations. Based on conversations with the project team, we understand the preference for the retaining wall constructed at the slope failure located at Mile Post 7.84 is a

Forest Service Road 221, Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

February 24, 2026 2 mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall type. Lastly, we understand the proposed AOP located at Mile 19.302 will consist of a bottomless, half-dome corrugated metal pipe supported on shallow concrete foundations.

The project information detailed in this report should be reviewed and confirmed by the appropriate team members. Modifications to our conclusions and recommendations may be required if the actual conditions vary from the project information and assumptions described herein.

3.0 Exploratory and Testing Procedures

3.1 Soil Test Borings

A member of S&ME’s professional staff made a site reconnaissance to observe site features and to mark the test boring locations. The locations of the borings, labeled B-01 through B-04, were selected at each site based on the existing site features, obstructions, and drill rig access. Members of the client’s survey subcontractor, Cannon and

Cannon, later surveyed the locations of these borings. The approximate boring locations are shown on the Boring

Location Plans (Figures No. 4 through 6) in the Appendix. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were estimated to the nearest foot based on the approximate locations and interpolation between the contours shown on the provided site plan. These elevations should be considered approximate.

Due to the rocky nature of the overburden soils, we were not able to advance our soil test borings using hollow stem augers as originally proposed. Therefore, the soil test borings for this exploration were made using a casing advancer in general accordance with ASTM D5872, Standard Practice for Use of Casing Advancement Drilling

Methods for Geoenvironmental Exploration. Continuous soil sampling was performed in general accordance with

ASTM D1586, Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils until auger refusal was reached for each boring. During standard penetration testing, the sampler was first seated 6 inches and then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot was recorded and is designated the standard penetration resistance (SPT) or N-value with units of blows per foot (bpf).

In addition to split barrel sampling, one relatively undisturbed Shelby tube sample was obtained from select boring locations and depths. We were unable to obtain more Shelby Tubes due to the granular nature of the materials. The borings were then backfilled with bentonite grout before leaving the site.

3.2 Laboratory Testing

The samples obtained during the field exploration were transported to our laboratory and visually classified by members of our professional staff in general accordance with ASTM D2488 Standard Practice for Description and

Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The purposes of this review were to check the field descriptions, visually estimate the relative percentages of the soils’ constituents (sand, clay, etc.), and evaluate the soil’s origin.

The stratification lines shown on the appended Boring Logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, but the transitions may be more gradual than shown. Selected soil samples were subjected to moisture content (ASTM D2216), Atterberg limits testing (ASTM D4318), grain size distribution (ASTM D1140), unconfined compression strength of rock (ASTM D2166), and corrosion testing including pH, sulfate, and chloride

Forest Service Road 221, Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

February 24, 2026 3 concentrations. We were unable to perform triaxial testing because testable Shelby tube samples could not be obtained in the soil matrix.

4.0 Site, Geologic, and Subsurface Conditions

4.1 Site Conditions

Each of the three sites are located along Forest Service Road FSR 221, also known as Peavine Sheeds Creek Road, within the southern Cherokee National Forest in eastern Tennessee. The sites are located at mile posts 6.229, 7.84, and 19.302. The site at Mile Post 6.229 is generally characterized by a small creek crossing currently accommodated by a metal culvert. The site at Mile Post 7.84 has a failing slope above the adjacent Graham Creek.

The site at Mile Post 19.302 comprises a creek crossing above the North Prong of Brown Camp Branch. Each site is located along a gravel, or asphalt-paved forest service road surrounded by mature trees and is adjacent to a stream.

4.2 Geologic Conditions

The project site lies within the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province (also known as the Unaka Physiographic

Province). The Blue Ridge, located along the eastern border of Tennessee, is a deeply dissected mountainous area of numerous steep mountain ridges (with elevations up to about 6,600 feet), basins, and trench valleys that intersect at all angles which give the area its rugged mountain character. This province is underlain by complexly folded and faulted igneous and metamorphic rock with some sedimentary rock. The Blue Ridge contains the highest elevations and the most rugged topography in the Appalachian Mountain system of eastern North

America.

Based on our review of the Geologic Map of East Tennessee, Plate 13, Cleveland Quadrangle, dated 1953, each site is underlain by bedrock of the Sandsuck Formation of the Walden Creek Group. This formation consists of greenish-gray siltstone, silty shale, and fine-grained sandstone with thick lenticular beds of sandstone and quartz-pebble conglomerate that occurs in the middle part of the formation. A copy of these maps is included in

Appendix I.

4.3 Subsurface Conditions

The borings logs included in the Appendix should be reviewed for specific information at the individual boring locations. The depths and thicknesses of the subsurface strata indicated on the boring logs are generalized and the transition between materials may be more gradual than indicated. Information on actual subsurface conditions exists only at the specific boring locations and is relevant to the time the exploration was performed. Variations may occur and should be expected between and away from the boring locations. The stratification lines were used for our analytical purposes and, unless specifically stated otherwise, should not be used as the basis for design or construction cost estimates.

Forest Service Road 221, Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

February 24, 2026 4

4.3.1 Surface Materials

Topsoil was encountered in borings B-01, B-02, and B-04 to a depth of about 1 inch. Asphalt was encountered in boring B-03 at a depth of about 2 inches.

4.3.2 Residual Soils

Residual soils were encountered in each of the soil test borings below the surface materials to auger refusal depths at about 4 inches to 10 feet. Residual soil forms from the in-place weathering of the underlying bedrock.

The residual soils encountered at the site were typically composed of orange brown to gray gravels and sands with varying amounts of silt or clay. N-values in the residuum ranged from 8 blows per foot to over 50 blows per

6-inch increment in cohesive soils, indicating a stiff to hard consistency. N-values in residual granular soils ranged from 4 to over 50 blows per 6-inch increment, indicating very loose to very dense relative densities.

4.3.3 Auger Refusal Materials

Auger refusal materials were encountered in each of the borings at depths ranging from about 4 inches to 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Refusal occurs when materials are encountered that cannot be penetrated by the drilling equipment and is normally indicative of a very hard or very dense material, such as a boulder, a rock lens or pinnacle, or the upper surface of bedrock. Auger refusal discussed herein is based on conditions impenetrable to the drilling equipment for this project. Auger refusal conditions with this particular equipment do not necessarily indicate conditions impenetrable to other equipment.

Rock was cored in each of the borings. The rock core samples collected were logged in the field. The recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) were determined prior to storing the samples. The rock core recovery is a measure of the length of core drilled to that recovered expressed as a percentage. The RQD is a measure of the rock quality based on the percentage of the rock core run containing pieces greater than 4 inches in length. The rock core recovery ranged from 85 to 100 percent. The RQD ranged from 60 to 100 percent. The rock cored typically consisted of gray and dark gray, moderately hard to very hard sandstones and shales.

5.0 Laboratory Testing

5.1 Laboratory Test Results Summary

The results of the laboratory testing for this project are summarized in the following table with the exception of grain size distribution and corrosion testing. Laboratory test reports are included in the Appendix.

Forest Service Road 221, Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

February 24, 2026 5

Test Results Summary

Boring Sample Type Depth

(ft)

Natural

Moisture

Content (%)

Percent Finer than US No

200 Sieve (%)

Liquid

Limit

Plasticity

Index

Unconfined

Compressive

Strength (psi)

B-01 Split Spoon 0-2 8.9 - - - -

B-02

Split Spoon 0-2 - 43.2 38 13 -

Split Spoon 2-4 - 9.4 35 12 -

Split Spoon 4-6 5.2 - - - -

Split Spoon 6-8 1.6 - - - -

Rock Core 9.1-9.5 - - - - 35,500

B-03

Split Spoon 0-2 - 29.4 30 10 -

Split Spoon 2-4 - 15.3 27 8 -

Rock Core 9.7-10.1 - - - - 20,482

B-04

Split Spoon 0-2 26.8 63.4 39 10 -

Split Spoon 4-6 33.3 56.1 47 10 -

Split Spoon 6-8 34.0 - - - -

“-“ Test not performed

5.2 Soil Corrosivity

Split-spoon samples obtained from each boring were selected for soil corrosivity testing by WSP. The testing included the determination of pH (ASTM G51), resistivity (ASTM G 187), chloride ion concentration (ASTM D 4327), and sulfate ion concentration (ASTM D4327). The results of these tests are used to evaluate the aggressiveness

(corrosivity) of the subsurface environment with respect to foundation materials such as concrete and steel. The sample recovered from B-01 did not have a sufficient mass of material and was not tested for resistivity.

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Earthwork

6.1.1 Stripping

Surface materials, including topsoil, gravel, and asphalt, should be stripped from the construction area. Topsoil was encountered to a depth of about one inch in borings B-01, B-03, and B-04 which were performed near the shoulders of the existing gravel roads. However, we expect the topsoil thicknesses may be greater in unexplored areas of the site particularly near drainage features. The amount of topsoil stripped prior to construction may be greater than the depths identified in our test borings depending on limitations of the contractor’s equipment.

Forest Service Road 221, Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

February 24, 2026 6

Approximately 2 inches of asphalt was encountered in boring B-02. We also observed gravel paving at Mile Posts

6.229, 7.84, and 19.302. We expect this gravel paving was several inches thick. However, greater depths of paving materials may be present in unexplored areas.

6.1.2 Subgrade Evaluation

After completion of stripping in areas to receive fill, and once grade is achieved in cut areas, we recommend a member of our geotechnical engineering staff evaluate the stability of the exposed subgrade soils. Subgrade evaluations may include hand probing with a steel probe rod, hand auger borings, test pit excavations or proofrolling with a loaded dump truck or other heavy equipment. In general, unstable materials should be undercut to stable soils and backfilled with compacted structural fill unless otherwise directed by the geotechnical engineer or his representative.

Subgrade repair can be expected to be more extensive if grading operations are performed during wet periods of the year. Once areas that need remediation have been repaired, the site may be brought to grade with structural fill. Depending on prevailing weather conditions and the speed of contractor activities, subgrade evaluations may be required on multiple occasions.

6.1.3 Difficult Excavation

Based on the boring data obtained during the exploration, we expect material requiring difficult excavation techniques will be encountered during foundation construction at the proposed box culvert and possibly at the

AOP structure. Auger refusal was encountered at a depth of about ½ foot in boring B-01 (Miles Post 6.229) and a depth of about 10 feet in boring B-04 (Mile Post 19.302). In confined excavations such as foundations, removal of weathered rock typically requires the use of large backhoes and/or pneumatic spades. The difficulty of excavation will depend on the composition of the rock, the location and orientation of discontinuities and bedding, and the skill of the equipment operator.

6.1.4 Earth Material Utilization and Fill Placement

After subgrade evaluation/preparation and completion of any field-recommended remedial actions, areas to receive fill may be brought to design subgrade levels with structural fill. Structural fill is defined as inorganic natural soil with maximum particle sizes of about 4 inches and a Plasticity Index of 30 or less. Structural fill should be placed in relatively thin (4- to 8-inch) layers and compacted to at least 98 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D698).

6.1.5 Fill Density Testing

In-place density testing must be performed as a check the previously recommended compaction criteria are achieved. We recommend density testing by a technician working under the direction of our project engineer.

6.1.6 Groundwater

Based on the test boring results, we do not expect that groundwater will present significant site development problems. However, perched groundwater conditions may occur at this site, particularly during periods of heavy rain. The contractor should provide adequate dewatering to maintain the groundwater level, if encountered, and

Forest Service Road 221, Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

February 24, 2026 7 surface water below the bottom of excavations, except when the excavation is in rock. Pumping from sumps constructed outside the excavation should be effective in dewatering the soils encountered in our exploration.

However, the dewatering methods selected should take into consideration the presence of gravel layers and pockets that will concentrate the groundwater flow in discreet zones. Water from the pumps should be discharged beyond the construction boundaries to limit its effect on construction activities.

6.2 Final Subgrade Preparation

Roadway subgrades are often disturbed between completion of site grading and final roadway construction due to weather, foundation installation, and other construction activities. For this reason, it is important the subgrades be evaluated just before final roadway grading. At that time, as much of the subgrade as practical should be proofrolled with a loaded dump truck in the presence of our representative. Any areas that deflect significantly under the proofrolling load, or which are otherwise assessed to be soft or unstable, should be undercut to firm materials. The undercut areas should be backfilled with compacted soil or crushed stone. Our representative can provide recommendations for repairing unstable areas that are observed.

6.3 Foundations

6.3.1 Box Culvert – Master Pin 77 / Mile Post 6.229

Based on the results of our soil test borings, we expect intact rock will be encountered at or above the proposed foundation bearing elevation of the proposed box culvert. We recommend the foundations be supported entirely on rock. If residual soils are encountered in areas at this proposed bearing elevation, this material should be undercut to expose intact bedrock. Once the excavations are completed and relatively free of loose debris, they should be backfilled with flowable fill or lean concrete to the design foundation bearing elevation. Foundation concrete may then be placed neat to the excavation.

Based on our analysis, foundations prepared in accordance with the recommendations of this report and bearing on bedrock, or on flowable fill, may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot.

6.3.2 Retaining Wall – Master Pin 92 / Mile Post 7.84

The proposed retaining wall at Mile Post 7.84 will be a MSE wall. The proposed wall will include a block facing supported on a unreinforced cast-in-place concrete leveling pad and geogrid reinforced zone. Recommendations for MSE wall construction will be provided in the Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Wall Design – Peavine

Sheeds Creek Road Slope Stabilization which will be issued under separate cover. A subsurface profile (Figure No.

7) at the proposed wall location is included in Appendix II.

6.3.3 Aquatic Organism Passage – Master Pin 179 / Mile Post 19.302

Based on the results of our soil test borings, we expect residual soils will be encountered at proposed foundation bearing elevations for the aquatic organism passage site. Based on our analysis, shallow spread footings bearing on compacted soil fill or medium dense or higher relative density or stiff or higher consistency residual soil may be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot. If a higher bearing pressure

Forest Service Road 221, Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

February 24, 2026 8 is required, the foundations may be undercut to bedrock and backfilled with lean concrete in accordance with the recommendations in Section 6.3.1. An allowable bearing pressure of up to 3,000 psf would be available for foundations bearing on rock.

6.3.4 General Foundation Recommendations

Foundation excavations should be backfilled with concrete the same day they are excavated. Footing concrete should be placed directly against the excavation so water cannot collect behind forms before backfilling. If soils exposed in the foundation excavations experience moisture variations prior to concrete placement, the affected bearing materials should be undercut as recommended by our geotechnical engineer. A 2- to 3-inch thick mud-mat of lean concrete may be used to protect the exposed support materials if the foundations cannot be backfilled with concrete the same day they are excavated. Although computed footing dimensions may be less, we recommend that continuous footings be a minimum of 18 inches wide and isolated spread footings be a minimum of 36 inches wide. Foundations should bear at a minimum of 18 inches below subgrade to protect against frost penetration and to provide adequate confinement.

The recommendations in this report are contingent on S&ME observing and evaluating the foundation excavations prior to placing concrete. Foundation subgrade observations should be performed by the geotechnical engineer, or his qualified representative, to confirm the recommendations provided in this report are consistent with the site conditions encountered. A Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) should be utilized to provide information that is compared to the data obtained in the geotechnical report. If unacceptable materials are encountered, the material should be excavated to stiff or higher consistency soils or remediated as recommended by the geotechnical engineer.

The recommendations in this report are contingent on S&ME observing and evaluating the foundation excavations prior to placing flowable fill or concrete. Foundation subgrade observations should be performed by the geotechnical engineer, or his qualified representative, in order to confirm the recommendations provided in this report are consistent with the site conditions encountered.

6.4 Seismic Considerations (AASHTO 2020)

The soil profile present at each site has been evaluated for a seismic design classification utilizing standard penetration resistance (N-value) information in general accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications, 2020 Section 3.10.3. Based on the results of our exploration and the geology of the area, we recommend a Site Class of C be used for the design of each of the proposed structures. The AASHTO manual contains a provision for assessing the use of site-specific values, provided a site-specific assessment is conducted.

S&ME can provide these services, if requested. For a site class of C for each structure, we determined the following design spectral acceleration parameters in accordance with AASHTO 3.10.2.1 provided in the table below.

Forest Service Road 221, Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

February 24, 2026 9

Spectral Acceleration Parameters

Structure Master Pin PGA SDS SD1

Box Culvert 77 0.148 0.321 0.117

Wall 92 0.147 0.320 0.117

Aquatic Organism Passage 179 0.146 0.319 0.117

6.5 Corrosivity

To evaluate the corrosion potential of onsite soils, we reviewed our corrosivity lab test results and compared them to Table 5-15 Typical Numerical Corrosivity Scoring System of the FHWA-NHI-16-072 GEC 5 – Geotechnical Site

Characterization document. Corrosivity scores for each site are summarized in the following table. The lab tests are included in the Appendix.

Corrosion Potential Score Summary

Test Location Total Corrosivity Score Soil Corrosion Potential

B-01 7* Moderate

B-02 2 Unlikely

B-03 1 Unlikely

B-04 9 Aggressive

*We were not able to obtain enough sample to perform resistivity testing on the samples obtained from boring B-01. The corrosivity score assumes a resistivity value of greater than 10,000 Ω-cm. Should resistivity of the soils at B-01 be less than 10,000 Ω-cm, this material would likely be considered to have an aggressive soil corrosion potential.

7.0 Follow-Up Services

Our services should not end with the submission of this geotechnical report. S&ME should be kept involved throughout the design and construction process to maintain continuity and to determine if our recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. To achieve this, we should review project plans and specifications with the designers to see that our recommendations are fully incorporated and have not been misinterpreted. We also should be retained by the owner to observe the site preparation and foundation construction.

S&ME’s familiarity with the site and foundation recommendations makes us a valuable part of your construction quality assurance team. S&ME recommends we be retained by the owner on a full-time basis to observe earthwork and foundation construction. Our personnel are uniquely qualified to recognize unanticipated ground conditions and can offer responsive remedial recommendations should these unanticipated conditions occur.

Forest Service Road 221, Conasauga, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

February 24, 2026 10

8.0 Limitations of Report

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for specific application to this project. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon applicable standards of our practice in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other representation or warranty is express or implied.

We relied on project information given to us or assumed by us based on similar projects in the East Tennessee area to develop our conclusions and recommendations. If project information described in this report is not accurate, or if it changes during project development, we should be notified of the changes so that we can modify our recommendations based on this additional information, if appropriate.

Our conclusions and recommendations are based on limited data from a field exploration program. Subsurface conditions can vary widely between explored areas. Some variations may not become evident until construction.

If conditions are encountered which appear different than those described in our report, we should be notified.

This report should not be construed to represent subsurface conditions for the entire site.

Unless specifically noted otherwise, our field exploration program did not include an assessment of regulatory compliance, environmental conditions or pollutants or presence of any biological materials (mold, fungi, bacteria).

If there is a concern about these items, other studies should be performed. S&ME can provide a proposal and perform these services, if requested.

S&ME should be retained to review the final plans and specifications to check that earthwork, foundation, and other recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. For additional information regarding the use and limitations of this report, please read the Important Information about your Geotechnical Engineering Report document located at the end of this report.

Appendix

Appendix I

Site Location Plans

Boring Location Plans

Geologic Maps

SCALE:

DATE:

PROJECT NUMBER

FIGURE NO.

NOT TO SCALE

5/29/2024

23810276

FSR 221 PEAVINE SHEEDS CREEK

CONASAUGA, TENNESSEE

SITE LOCATION PLAN – MASTER PIN 77/MILE POST 6.229

DRAWING FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP, PARKSVILLE TN 2022

SITE

PROJECT NUMBER

FIGURE NO.

NOT TO SCALE

5/29/2024

238103276

FSR 221 PEAVINE SHEEDS CREEK

CONASAUGA, TENNESSEE

SITE LOCATION PLAN – MASTER PIN 92/MILE POST 7.84

DRAWING FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP, TENNGA GA 2022

PROJECT NUMBER

FIGURE NO.

NOT TO SCALE

5/29/2024

23810276

FSR 221 PEAVINE SHEEDS CREEK

CONASAUGA, TENNESSEE

SITE LOCATION PLAN – MASTER PIN 179/MILE POST 19.302

DRAWING FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP, CANEY CREEK TN 2022

PROJECT NUMBER

FIGURE NO.

NOT TO SCALE

5/29/2024

23810276

BORING LOCATION PLAN – MASTER PIN 77/MILE POST 6.229

B-01

NOTES:

IMAGERY PROVIDED BY WSP.

DRAWING FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

LEGEND: APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

FSR 221 PEAVINE SHEEDS CREEK

CONASAUGA, TENNESSEE

PROJECT NUMBER

FIGURE NO.

NOT TO SCALE

5/29/2024

23810276

BORING LOCATION PLAN – MASTER PIN 92/MILE POST 7.84

B-02

B-03

NOTES:

IMAGERY PROVIDED BY WSP.

PROJECT NUMBER

FIGURE NO.

NOT TO SCALE

5/29/2024

23810276

BORING LOCATION PLAN – MASTER PIN 179/MILE POST 19.302

B-04

NOTES:

IMAGERY PROVIDED BY WSP.

Appendix II

Test Boring Logs

Subsurface Profile - MP 7.84

Soil Log Legend

Rock Core Log Legend

Descriptive Order of Soil Strata: Geologic Disposition (i.e., Fill, Colluvium, Alluvium, etc.), ASTM Group Name (ASTM Group Symbol), quantified/qualified soil constituents, misc. constituents, consistency/density, color, organic description, moisture. ASTM group classifications is determined per ASTM D2487 where lab testing has been performed and ASTM D2488 where lab testing has not been performed.

SHELBY TUBE (ST) samples are obtained by hydraulically pushing a thin-walled tube (typically 3-inches in diameter) to obtain a relatively undisturbed sample for testing of fine-grained soils to determine engineering properties such as strength, compressibility, permeability, and density. Shelby tubes are sampled in general accordance with ASTM D1587 (AASHTO T207).

The STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) as defined by ASTM D1586 (or AASHTO T206) is a method to obtain a disturbed soil sample for examination and testing and to obtain relative density and consistency information. A standard 1.4-inch I.D./2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler is driven three 6-inch increments with a 140 lb. hammer freely falling 30 inches. The hammer can either be of a trip, free-fall design, or actuated by a rope and cathead. The SPT N Value is determined by adding the number of blows from the 2nd and 3rd 6-inch increments. A normalized blowcount (N60) may be determined by the following equation: N60 = [ Rig Energy Ratio (%) / 60 ] * N.

SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS

N - Standard Penetration, bpf

NMC - Natural Moisture Content, %

F - Fines Content, %

LL - Liquid Limit, %

PL - Plastic Limit, %

PI - Plasticity Index, %

PPV - Pocket Penetrometer Value, tsf

Qu - Unconfined Compressive Strength gd - Dry Unit Weight, pcf

ASTM GROUP NAME (SYMBOL) AND GRAPHIC

FINE-GRAINED SOIL

(Relative Consistency)

N PPV

Very Soft < 2 bpf < 0.25 tsf

Soft 2 - 4 bpf > 0.25 - 0.5 tsf

Firm 5 - 8 bpf > 0.5 - 1.0 tsf

Stiff 9 - 15 bpf > 1.0 - 2.0 tsf

Very Stiff 16 - 30 bpf > 2.0 - 4.0 tsf

Hard > 30 bpf > 4.0 tsf

COARSE-GRAINED SOIL

(Relative Density)

N

Very Loose < 5 bpf

Loose 5 - 10 bpf

Medium Dense 11 - 30 bpf

Dense 31 - 50 bpf

Very Dense > 50 bpf

MINOR CONSTITUENTS

(% By Weight)

Percentage

Trace 0% - 10%

Little 11% - 20%

Some 21% - 35%

“And” > 36%

ORGANIC CONTENT OF SOIL

(Determined by ASTM D2974 or AASHTO T267)

Classification Percentage

With Organic Matter 4% - 15%

Organic Soil 16% - 30%

Peat > 30%

MOISTURE CONDITION

Dry Absense of moisture, dusty, dry to touch

Moist Damp but no visible water

Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

Groundwater observation made anytime during the drilling process. Depending on time of reading and drilling methodologies, this value may be influenced by the drilling process.

Groundwater measurement soon after the drilling processes are complete, and the borehole is at final depth. Drilling fluids, if introduced during drilling, may influence this measurement.

Groundwater measurements made in a borehole hours to days after drilling is complete. Depending on subsurface conditions, elapsed time, drilling process, etc. this observation may reflect a stabilized level.

At Time of Drilling (ATD)

End of Drilling

After Drilling

FHWA NHI-16-072, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5 “Geotechnical Site Characterization” ASTM Specifications D2487 and D2488 DOT Specifications & Design Manuals from NC, SC, OH, MI, IN, PA, VA.

REFERENCES:

(GM)

CLAYEY GRAVE

(GC)

CLAYEY GRAVE

WITH SILT (GC-GM

SPT

ST

ROCK QUALITY

Percent

>90–100

>75–90

>50–75

>25–50

0–25

Quality

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

L = 10” (254mm)

L = 0

HIGHLY

WEATHERED

DOES NOT MEET

SOUNDNESS

REQUIREMENT

L = 0

CENTERLINE

PIECES <4”

(100mm) & HIGHLY

WEATHERED

L = 7.5” (190.5mm)

L = 8” (203mm)

L = 0

NO

REC.

CORE RUN OR INTERNAL TOTAL LENGTH = 4’ (1220mm)

MECHANICAL

BREAK DUE TO

DRILLING PROCESS

LEGEND

SOUND

ROCK

UNSOUND

ROCK

Unfractured >10 ft.

Intact 10 ft. – 3 ft.

Slightly Fractured 3 ft. – 1 ft.

Moderately Fractured 12 in. – 4 in.

Fractured 4 in. – 2 in.

Highly Fractured < 2 in.

Extremely Strong Rock

Specimen can only be chipped with firm blows from the hammer end of a geological hammer.

> 36,250

Very Strong Rock

Specimen requires many firm blows from the hammer end of a geological hammer to fracture.

36,250 – 14,500

Strong Rock Specimen requires more than one firm blow of the point of a geological hammer to fracture.

14,500 – 7,250

Medium Strong Rock

Specimen cannot be scraped or cut with a pocket knife. Specimen can be fractured with a single firm blow with a geological hammer point.

7,250 – 3,500

Weak Rock Shallow cuts or scrapes can be made in a specimen with a pocket knife. A firm blow with a geological hammer creates shallow indents.

3,500 – 725

Very Weak Rock

Specimen crumbles under sharp blow with point of geological hammer and can be peeled with a pocket knife.

725 – 150

Extremely Weak Rock

Specimen can be indented by thumbnail. 150 – 35

WEATHERING

Fresh No visible sign of rock material weathering; slight discoloration on major discontinuity surfaces is possible.

Slightly Weathered

Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces. All rock material may be discolored by weathering and the external surface may be somewhat weaker than in its fresh condition.

Moderately Weathered

Less than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones. A minimum 2 in. diameter sample cannot be broken readily by hand.

Highly Weathered

More than half the rock is decomposed or disintegrated to soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones. A minimum 2 in. diameter sample can be broken readily by hand across the rock fabric.

Completely Weathered

All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. The original mass structure is largely still intact. Material can by granulated by hand.

Residual Soil All rock material is converted to soil. Material can be easily broken apart by hand.

STRENGTH

Very Fine-Grained <0.003 in.

(<0.075 mm)

Fine-Grained 0.003 – 0.02 in.

(0.075 – 0.425 mm)

Medium-Grained 0.02 – 0.8 in.

(0.425 – 2 mm)

Coarse-Grained 0.8 – 2 in.

(2 – 4.75 mm)

Very Coarse-Grained >2 in.

(>4.75 mm)

GRAIN SIZE

REC=

x100(Recovery)

Length of Rock Core Recovered

Length of Core Run

Rock Core

Sample

ROCK

CORE LOG

LEGEND

BEDDING

Very Thickly Bedded >3 ft.

Thickly Bedded 3 ft. – 18 in.

Thinly Bedded 18 in. – 2 in.

Very Thinly Bedded 2 in. – 0.4 in.

Laminated 0.4 in. – 0.1 in.

Thinly Laminated <0.1 in.

FRACTURE RATE / SPACING

SURFACE ROUGHNESS

Very Rough Near vertical steps and ridges occur on the discontinuity surface.

Slightly Rough Asperities on the discontinuity surface are distinguishable and can be felt.

Smooth Surface appears smooth and feels so to the touch.

Slickensided Surface has a smooth, glassy finish with visual evidence of striation.

APPROX. UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (PSI)

REFERENCES:

FHWA NHI-16-072, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CIRCULAR NO. 5 “GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION”

DOT SPECIFICATIONS & DESIGN MANUALS FROM NC, SC, OH, MI, IN, PA.

RQD= ∑ Sound Core with Length (L) ≥ 4” (100mm) Core Run or Interval Total Length( )x 100

(Equation)

RQD= 8”+7.5”+10”

48”( )x 100 = 53% (FAIR)(Example)

ROCK CORE RECOVERY

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD)

(ASTM D6032)

Very Hard Cannot be scratched with a pocket knife; leaves knife steel marks on surface.

Hard Can be scratched by a pocket knife with difficulty; scratch produces little powder and is only faintly visible;

trace of knife’s steel may be visible.

Moderately Hard Can be readily scratched by a pocket knife; scratch leaves a heavy trace of dust and scratch is readily visible after the powder has been blown away.

Low Hardness Can be gouged deeply or carved with a pocket knife.

Friable Easily crumbled by hand, pulverized or reduced to powder sand is too soft to be cut by a pocket knife.

Soft Very weak plastic material.

HARDNESS

Core Diameter (I.D.)

BQ

NQ

HQ

Inches

1-7/16

1-7/8

2-1/2

L = 0 <4”

(100mm)

DE

PT

H (fe et

NOTES

Auger refusal at 0.3 feet

O rig in /I de nƟ

Įe r

Re s id u um

G

RA

PH

IC

SAMPLE NO.

(RECOVERY)

SS-1

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), liƩle rock fragments, hard, brown, moist

BLOW COUNT

DATA

(SPT N-value)

50/2" N = 50/2"

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

% Fines

NMC

PL---LL

20 40 60 80 100

0.1 0.3

10.3

Run-1

REC-97%

RQD-92%

Run-2

REC-100%

RQD-90%

TOPSOIL, 1 inch SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), liƩle rock fragments, hard, brown, moist SHALE, gray, conƟnuous, excellent quality, medium-grained, fresh, very hard

Borehole terminated at 10.3 feet

PROJECT: FSR 221 Peavine Sheeds Creek Road Polk County, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

BORING LOG: B-01

Sheet 1 of 1

DATE DRILLED: 02/20/2024

DRILL RIG: CME 550

DRILLER: Anthony Hooks

HAMMER TYPE: AutomaƟc hammer

DRILLING METHOD: HQ CA, NQ

ELEVATION: 1135 Ō

DATUM: NAVD88

BORING DEPTH: 10.3 Ō

CLOSURE: Cement Grout LOGGED BY: Pen Sibley

NOTES: FSR221 Mile 6.229, Master Pin 77

LATITUDE: 35.005756 LONGITUDE: -84.663646

SAMPLING METHOD: CORE, SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD 1983 StatePlane Tennessee FIPS 4100 Feet

GROUNDWATER DATE DEPTH

(FT) REMARKS

ATD 02/20/2024 Not encountered prior to coring

END OF DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED. ATD = AT TIME OF DRILLING LL=Liquid Limit, PL = PlasƟc Limit, NMC = Natural Moisture Content, PPV = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf), PTV = Pocket Torvane (tsf), AR = Auger Refusal, IGM = Intermediate Geomaterial

Project:

Polk County, Tennessee 23810276

Core Photographs: B-01 Sheet 1 of 1

Date: 02/20/2024 ElevaƟon: 1135 Ō Notes:

Photographed by: Pen Sibley LaƟtude: 35.005756 Longitude: -84.663646

B-01 Depth: 0.3 - 5.3 ft B-01 Depth: 5.3 - 10.3 ft

H (fe et

NOTES

Poor recovery S-4

Auger refusal at 9.0 feet

0.1

2.0

6.0

O rig in /I de nƟ

Įe r

Re sid uu m

G

RA

PH

IC

SAMPLE NO.

(RECOVERY)

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

TOPSOIL, 1 inch SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), very dense, orange brown, moist

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY

AND SAND (GP-GC), some sand, very loose to dense, orange brown, wet

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), some sand, medium dense to very dense, orange brown, wet

BLOW COUNT

DATA

(SPT N-value)

31-50/2" N = 50/2"

19-2-2-5 N = 4

7-19-17-7 N = 36

45-7-7-7 N = 14

7-50/3" N = 50/3"

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

% Fines

NMC

PL---LL

20 40 60 80 100

9.0 Run-1

REC-90%

RQD-83%

Run-2

REC-100%

RQD-100%

SANDSTONE, gray, conƟnuous, good quality to excellent quality, medium-grained, slightly weathered to fresh, very hard

PROJECT: FSR 221 Peavine Sheeds Creek Road Polk County, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

BORING LOG: B-02

Sheet 1 of 2

DATE DRILLED: 02/20/2024

DRILL RIG: CME 550

DRILLER: Anthony Hooks

HAMMER TYPE: AutomaƟc hammer

DRILLING METHOD: HQ CA, NQ

ELEVATION: 1049 Ō

DATUM: NAVD88

BORING DEPTH: 20.2 Ō

CLOSURE: Cement Grout LOGGED BY: Pen Sibley

NOTES: FSR221, Mile 7.84, Master Pin 92 (North of failure)

LATITUDE: 34.999566 LONGITUDE: -84.646774

SAMPLING METHOD: SS, CORE PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD 1983 StatePlane Tennessee FIPS 4100 Feet

GROUNDWATER DATE DEPTH

(FT) REMARKS

ATD 02/20/2024 Not encountered prior to coring

END OF DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED. ATD = AT TIME OF DRILLING LL=Liquid Limit, PL = PlasƟc Limit, NMC = Natural Moisture Content, PPV = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf), PTV = Pocket Torvane (tsf), H (fe et

NOTES

20.2

G

RA

PH

IC

SAMPLE NO.

(RECOVERY)

Run-3

REC-100%

RQD-100%

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SANDSTONE, gray, conƟnuous, good quality to excellent quality, medium-grained, slightly weathered to fresh, very hard

Borehole terminated at 20.2 feet

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

PROJECT: FSR 221 Peavine Sheeds Creek Road Polk County, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

BORING LOG: B-02

Sheet 2 of 2

DATE DRILLED: 02/20/2024

DRILL RIG: CME 550

DRILLER: Anthony Hooks

HAMMER TYPE: AutomaƟc hammer

DRILLING METHOD: HQ CA, NQ

ELEVATION: 1049 Ō

DATUM: NAVD88

BORING DEPTH: 20.2 Ō

CLOSURE: Cement Grout LOGGED BY: Pen Sibley

NOTES: FSR221, Mile 7.84, Master Pin 92 (North of failure)

LATITUDE: 34.999566 LONGITUDE: -84.646774

SAMPLING METHOD: CORE, SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD 1983 StatePlane Tennessee FIPS 4100 Feet

GROUND WATER DATE/TIME DEPTH

(FT) REMARKS

ATD 02/20/2024 Not encountered prior to coring

END OF DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED. ATD = AT TIME OF DRILLING

Polk County, Tennessee 23810276

Core Photographs: B-02 Sheet 1 of 1

Date: 02/20/2024 ElevaƟon: 1049 Ō Notes:

Photographed by: Pen Sibley LaƟtude: 34.999566 Longitude: -84.646774

B-02 Depth: 9.0 - 10.2 ft B-02 Depth: 10.2 - 15.2 ft

B-02 Depth: 15.2 - 20.2 ft

H (fe et

NOTES

Shelby tube aƩempted at

3.5 Ō, no

advancement due to gravel

Auger refusal at 6.2 feet

0.2

2.0

O rig in /I de nƟ

Įe r

Re sid uu m

G

RA

PH

IC

SAMPLE NO.

(RECOVERY)

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ASPHALT, 2 inches CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), loose, orange brown, moist

CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC),

medium dense, orange brown, moist

BLOW COUNT

DATA

(SPT N-value)

6-5-4-3 N = 9

11-11-10 N = 21

48-11-7-50/3

N = 18

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

% Fines

NMC

PL---LL

20 40 60 80 100

6.2

15.5

Run-1

REC-85%

RQD-77%

Run-2

REC-100%

RQD-60%

SANDSTONE, gray, fairly conƟnuous to conƟnuous, good quality to fair quality, medium-grained, slightly weathered to moderately weathered, very hard

Borehole terminated at 15.5 feet

PROJECT: FSR 221 Peavine Sheeds Creek Road Polk County, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

BORING LOG: B-03

Sheet 1 of 1

DATE DRILLED: 02/21/2024

DRILL RIG: CME 550

DRILLER: Anthony Hooks

HAMMER TYPE: AutomaƟc hammer

DRILLING METHOD: HQ CA, NQ

ELEVATION: 1044 Ō

DATUM: NAVD88

BORING DEPTH: 15.5 Ō

CLOSURE: Cement Grout LOGGED BY: Pen Sibley

NOTES: FSR221, Mile 7.84, Master Pin 92 (South of failure)

LATITUDE: 34.999450 LONGITUDE: -85.646658

SAMPLING METHOD: SS, CORE PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD 1983 StatePlane Tennessee FIPS 4100 Feet

GROUNDWATER DATE DEPTH

(FT) REMARKS

ATD 02/21/2024 Not encountered prior to coring

END OF DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED. ATD = AT TIME OF DRILLING LL=Liquid Limit, PL = PlasƟc Limit, NMC = Natural Moisture Content, PPV = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf), PTV = Pocket Torvane (tsf), Polk County, Tennessee 23810276

Core Photographs: B-03 Sheet 1 of 1

Date: 02/21/2024 ElevaƟon: 1044 Ō Notes:

Photographed by: Pen Sibley LaƟtude: 34.999450 Longitude: -85.646658

B-03 Depth: 6.2 - 10.5 ft B-03 Depth: 10.5 - 15.5 ft

H (fe et

NOTES

Tube crushed

Auger refusal at 10.1 feet

0.1

6.0

O rig in /I de nƟ

Įe r

Re sid uu m

G

RA

PH

IC

SAMPLE NO.

(RECOVERY)

SS-1

UD-1

REC-84%

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

TOPSOIL, 1 inch SANDY SILT (ML), Įrm to sƟī, gray with orange, moist

PWR, sampled as SANDY SILT (ML), hard, gray, relict structure, moist

BLOW COUNT

DATA

(SPT N-value)

2-4-4-4 N = 8

4-2-7-22 N = 9

12-19-50/5" N = 50/5"

8-24-50/5" N = 50/5"

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

% Fines

NMC

PL---LL

20 40 60 80 100

10.1

Run-1

REC-86%

RQD-68%

SHALE, dark gray, fairly conƟnuous to conƟnuous, fair quality to excellent quality, moderately weathered to fresh, moderately hard

PROJECT: FSR 221 Peavine Sheeds Creek Road Polk County, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

BORING LOG: B-04

Sheet 1 of 2

DATE DRILLED: 02/22/2024

DRILL RIG: CME 550

DRILLER: Anthony Hooks

HAMMER TYPE: AutomaƟc hammer

DRILLING METHOD: HQ CA, NQ

ELEVATION: 1476 Ō

DATUM: NAVD88

BORING DEPTH: 20.4 Ō

CLOSURE: Cement Grout LOGGED BY: Pen Sibley

NOTES: FSR221 Mile 19.302, Master Pin 179

LATITUDE: 35.052290 LONGITUDE: -84.532227

SAMPLING METHOD: SS, CORE, UD PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD 1983 StatePlane Tennessee FIPS 4100 Feet

GROUNDWATER DATE DEPTH

(FT) REMARKS

ATD 02/22/2024 Not encountered prior to coring

END OF DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED. ATD = AT TIME OF DRILLING LL=Liquid Limit, PL = PlasƟc Limit, NMC = Natural Moisture Content, PPV = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf), PTV = Pocket Torvane (tsf), H (fe et

NOTES

20.4

G

RA

PH

IC

SAMPLE NO.

(RECOVERY)

Run-2

REC-100%

RQD-93%

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SHALE, dark gray, fairly conƟnuous to conƟnuous, fair quality to excellent quality, moderately weathered to fresh, moderately hard

Borehole terminated at 20.4 feet

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

PROJECT: FSR 221 Peavine Sheeds Creek Road Polk County, Tennessee

S&ME Project No. 23810276

BORING LOG: B-04

Sheet 2 of 2

DATE DRILLED: 02/22/2024

DRILL RIG: CME 550

DRILLER: Anthony Hooks

HAMMER TYPE: AutomaƟc hammer

DRILLING METHOD: HQ CA, NQ

ELEVATION: 1476 Ō

DATUM: NAVD88

BORING DEPTH: 20.4 Ō

CLOSURE: Cement Grout LOGGED BY: Pen Sibley

NOTES: FSR221 Mile 19.302, Master Pin 179

LATITUDE: 35.052290 LONGITUDE: -84.532227

SAMPLING METHOD: CORE, SS, UD PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD 1983 StatePlane Tennessee FIPS 4100 Feet

GROUND WATER DATE/TIME DEPTH

(FT) REMARKS

ATD 02/22/2024 Not encountered prior to coring

END OF DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED. ATD = AT TIME OF DRILLING

Polk County, Tennessee 23810276

Core Photographs: B-04 Sheet 1 of 1

Date: 02/22/2024 ElevaƟon: 1476 Ō Notes:

Photographed by: Pen Sibley LaƟtude: 35.052290 Longitude: -84.532227

B-04 Depth: 10.1 - 15.4 ft B-04 Depth: 15.4 - 20.4 ft

1050 1050

1049 1049

1048 1048

1047 1047

1046 1046

1045 1045

1044 1044

1043 1043

1042 1042

1041 1041

1040 1040

1039 1039

1038 1038

1037 1037

1036 1036

1035 1035

1034 1034

1033 1033

1032 1032

1031 1031

1030 1030

1029 1029

1028 1028

1027 1027

1026 10261025.00

Legend Key

Topsoil

SM

GP-GC

Asph…

SC

GC

Bed… San…

The depicted straƟgraphy is shown for illustraƟve purposes only and is not warranted. SeparaƟons between diīerent strata may be gradual and likely vary considerably from those shown. ProĮles between nearby borings have been esƟmated using reasonable engineering care and judgement. The actual subsurface condiƟons will vary between boring locaƟons.

AT TIME OF

DRILLING

END OF DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

Subsurface ProĮle - MP 7.84

FSR 221 Peavine Sheeds Creek Road Polk County, Tennessee

SCALE:

DATE:

PROJECT

NUMBER:

1:107

Aug 29, 2024

23810276

FIGURE NO

0.1

2.0

6.0

9.0

20.2

B-

BT

20.2

Ō

N -V al ue

50/2

50/3

RE

C/

RQ

D

90/83 Run-1

100/100 Run-2

100/100 Run-3

0.2

2.0

6.2

15.5

B-

BT

15.5

Ō

N -V al ue

RE

C/

RQ

D

85/77 Run-1

100/60 Run-2

Appendix III

Lab Test Results

MC LL PL PI

8.9

38 25 13 p 35 23 12

5.2

1.6

— 30 20 10

27 19 8

26.8 39 29 10 r 33.3 47 37 10

34.0

Project Number 23810276

Approved by Date

3/29/2024 14:14

INDEX TEST RESULTS

Project Name FR 221 Peavine Sheeds Creek

B-04 SS-3 6

B-04 SS-1 0 63.4 ML SANDY SILT (A-4)

B-04 SS-2 4 56.1 ML SANDY SILT (A-5)

B-03 SS-2 2 15.3 GC CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (A-2-4)

B-03 SS-1

B-02 SS-3 4

0 29.4 SC CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (A-2-4)

B-02 SS-4 6

B-02 SS-2 2 9.4 GP-GC POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND (A-2-6)

B-02 SS-1

ID No. Top Depth Symbol Name

0 43.2 SM SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (A-6)

B-01 SS-1 0

Specimen Identification Fines Classification (symbol is based on minus 40 material only when no grain size information is present.)

0 20 40 60 80 100 Liquid Limit

CHCL

ML

CL-ML

MH

P L A S T I C

I N D E X

References / Comments / Deviations:

TThompson TThompson

Tested by Approved by Signature

Chattanooga 4291 Highway 58, Suite 101, Chattanooga, TN 37416

Description of Sand & Gravel Particles: Rounded o Angular x

Hard & Durable x Soft o Weathered & Friable o

This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.

Gravel 27.4 Medium Sand 12.3 Silt & Clay 43.2

Liquid Limit 38 Plastic Limit 25 Plastic Index 13

Coarse Sand < 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm (#10) Silt & Clay < 0.075

Maximum Particle Size 19 mm Coarse Sand 9.5 Fine Sand 7.6

Cobbles < 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3") Medium Sand < 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40)

Gravel < 75 mm and > 4.75 mm (#4) Fine Sand < 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm

ASTM PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS

Classification…