NP WV NERI 107(2) - FINAL - Soils and Foundation Report - Signed.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

REPORT NO. 06-23

PROJECT: NP WV NERI 107(2)

LANDSLIDES REPAIRS

CUNARD RIVER ACCESS ROAD (ROUTE 107)

FAYETTE COUNTY AND RALEIGH COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

22001 LOUDOUN COUNTY PARKWAY, BUILDING E-2, SUITE 200

21400 RIDGETOP CIRCLE

ASHBURN, VIRGINIA 20147

AUGUST 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. General

1.2. Project Location

1.3. Background

2. GEOLOGY

2.1. Regional Geology

3. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

3.1. Drilling, Sampling, Equipment, and Testing

3.2. Laboratory Testing

4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1. General Stratification

4.2. Groundwater

5. DESIGN ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Design Alternatives

5.2. Design Analysis

5.3. Recommendations

6. CONSTRUCTION

7. REFERENCES

8. DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

Appendix I – Figures Appendix II – Geotechnical Data Report Appendix III – Design Analysis Appendix IV – Site Photographs

Note: Design changes subsequent to publication of this report and prior to the project’s advertisement will be documented by a memo attached after the title page.

LANDSLIDE REPAIRS

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

PAGE 3 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

REPORT NO. 06-23

LANDSLIDES REPAIRS

CUNARD RIVER ACCESS ROAD (ROUTE 107)

FAYETTE COUNTY AND RALEIGH COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. General

This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, geotechnical analysis, and evaluations and recommendations for the repair of four (4) landslides along Cunard River Access Road (Route 107) in West Virginia.

1.2. Project Location

The project includes the repair of four (4) landslides sites along Route 107 within New River Gorge National Park and Preserve. Table No. 1 includes a summary of the sites locations. Vicinity maps and sites location are shown in Figures No. 1 through No. 3 in Appendix I

Table No. 1: Field Data

NP WV NERI 107(2) Site List

Site ID Description Route ID

107 1

Landslide Site 107 2

107 3

107 4

1.3. Background

Cunard Access Road (Route 107) in the New River Gorge National Park and Preserve experienced road damage that included landslides and embankment failures. This project is intended to repair storm damages along at the sites mentioned above.

2. GEOLOGY

2.1. Regional Geology

Available geologic information indicates the project sites are located within the Pocahontas, Bluestone and Princetone Formations. The geologic map of the project area is included in Appendix II – Geotechnical Data Report.

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

PAGE 4 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

3. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

3.1. Drilling, Sampling, Equipment, and Testing

A subsurface exploration program consisting of soil borings and rock cores was conducted to characterize subsurface conditions at the subject sites. Drilling was performed by Terracon between September 8 and September 12, 2022. The program consisted of drilling the total of five (5) soil borings. Detail information of the subsurface exploration, borings location plan, boring logs, and rock cores are included in Appendix II – Geotechnical Data Report.

3.2. Laboratory Testing

A laboratory testing program was conducted on representative soil and rock core samples recovered during the subsurface exploration. The primary purpose of the testing program was to aid in the classification and evaluation of the engineering properties of soils and rock present at the site. Laboratory tests included natural moisture content (AASHTO T-265), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T-89 & T-90), particle size analysis (AASHTO T-88), and classification (AASHTO M-145) on soil samples, and Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Test (ASTM D 7012) of intact rock core samples. All tests were conducted in accordance with applicable AASHTO/ASTM standard test methods. The results of the laboratory testing program are included in Appendix II – Geotechnical Data Report

4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1. General Stratification

In general, the soil borings encountered three layers. These were Layer 1 – Existing Fill, Layer 2 – Native Soil, and Layer 3 – Bedrock. A brief description of the soils encountered is presented in Appendix II – Geotechnical Data Report.

It should be noted that the stratification lines designating the interfaces between soil and rock types on the boring logs, represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. One or more of the units may be absent at specific locations.

Site observations reveal the presence of bedrock outcrops at differents locations along Cunard River Access road. Coubles, Boulders and shallow Bedrock may be encountered at different depths and locations along the sites. It is responsibility of the contractor to determine the means and methods of excavation and construction. See Section 6 of the report.

4.2. Groundwater

Groundwater depth information can be found in Appendix II – Geotechnical Data Report. However, changes in groundwater levels could be expected due to seasonal variations, precipitation, evaporation, and surface water runoff.

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

PAGE 5 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

5. DESIGN ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Design Alternatives

Landslides occur as a result of unbalanced pressures along the sloping ground. The presence of water, works as a trigger mechanism by increasing the driving forces and/or reducing the shear strength of the in-situ materials. To mitigate slope stability problems, two general approaches can be used. One approach is to reduce the driving forces and increasing shear strength by lowering the groundwater table by improving the surface and subsurface drainage systems. The second approach is to increase the resisting forces by buttressing the slope, adding a retaining structure, or by reinforcing the embankment fill.

Three alternatives were considered given its feasibility and effectiveness for landslides stabilization, subsurface conditions, constructability, cost, project requirements, and our experience with similar projects.

A brief discussion of each alternative is presented below.

Alternative No. 1 – MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) Retaining Wall with Welded Wire Mesh Facing

This alternative consists of re-establishing the roadway and stabilize the slope by constructing a retaining wall with geosynthetic reinforced soil. MSE walls are constructed using common construction materials, and conventional equipment and techniques, providing an economical and durable structure. It is cost-effective, self-draining, and can tolerate larger differential settlements compared to other repair alternatives.

This alternative will require road closure at all times. These structures can be constructed with a Battered vegetated system that provides the opportunity for vegetation to grow and mimic the surrounding landscape.

Alternative No. 2 – Anchored Soldier Pile Wall

This alternative consists of re-establishing the roadway and stabilize the slope by constructing an Anchored Soldier Pile Wall. This structure is a non-gravity cantilvered wall that relies on permanent ground anchors for additional lateral support and slope stability mitigation measures. This type of wall requires a specialized contractor, equipment and techniques which will be a more costly approach in comparison to MSE and RSS structures.

Alternative No. 3 – Reinforced Soil Slope (RSS)

Reinforced Soil Slope systems are composed of continuoes layers of geogrid laid down alternatively with horizontal layers of compacted select granular backfill or granular backfill (AASHTO # 57 Stone) with a face no steeper than 70° from horizontal. These types of systems are constructed using common construction materials, conventional equipment and techniques, providing an economical and durable structure. It is cost-effective, self-draining, and can tolerate larger differential settlements compared to other repair alternatives. These structures can be constructed with a vegetated system that provides the opportunity for vegetation to grow and mimic the surrounding landscape.

Our recommendations are listed below:

Alternative No. 1 - MSE Retaining Wall with Welded Wire Mesh Facing and horizontal broken backslope.

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

PAGE 6 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

5.2. Design Analysis

The design of the structures was conducted using limit equilibrium methodology, in general accordance with the design concepts and procedures presented in “FHWA, Geotechnical Engineer Circular No. 11 – Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes”, and following “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Ed.” (2020) November 2021 Errata design requirements. A summary of soil engineering parameters assumed in the external, internal, and global stability analyses are presented in Table No. 2.

A uniform distributed live surcharge load was applied along the travelway to account for traffic loading following (AASHTO-LRFD, 2020)– Section 3.11.6.4 requirements.

Table No. 2: Summary of assumed engineering properties for analysis and design of structures.

Material Type Unit Weight

(pcf) Cohesion

(psf)

Internal Friction Angle ϕ (°) Granular Backfill 110 – 120 0.0 34 – 38

Layer 1 95 – 120 0.0 28 - 32 Layer 2 100 – 130 0.0 28 – 34 Bedrock 160 – 165 500 – 1,000 38 – 45

The selected load factors and combinations are presented in Table No. 3. The factors follow (AASHTO- LRFD, 2020). The resistance factor used for design is presented in Table No. 4.

Table No. 3: Retaining walls design load factors and combinations.

Load Combination EH EV ES LS Strength I (Max) 1.50 1.35 1.50 1.75 Strength I (Min) 0.90 1.00 0.75 1.75

Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Extreme Event I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 or 0.50

Table No. 4: MSE Wall design resistance factors.

Analysis Resistance Factor Sliding Φ: 1.00 Bearing Φ: 0.65

Overall/Global Φ: 0.75 (FS:1.3) Tensile Resistance of Geosynthetic Reinforcement Φ: 0.80 Pullout Resistance of Geosynthetic Reinforcement Φ: 0.70

External and internal stability analysis computations were performed using PTC Mathcad Prime v. 8.0 software program by Computer Software Company (PTC) Inc, MSEW+ v. 2021.12 software program by ADAMA Engineering, Inc, and global/overall and compound stability analysis using the computer program Slide2 v. 9.023 by Rocscience, Inc. Design calculations and computer output files are included in Appendix III – Design Analysis.

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

PAGE 7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

According to AASHTO 11.5.4.2, a seismic design shall not be considered mandatory for walls located in Seismic Zones 1 through 3, or for walls at Sites where the site adjusted peak ground acceleration is less than or equal to 0.4g, unless one or more of the following is true:

Liquefaction induced lateral spreading or slope failure, or seismically induced slope failure, due to the presence of sensitive clays that lose strength during the seismic shaking, may impact the stability of the wall for the design earthquake.

The wall supports another structure that is required, based on the applicable design code or specification for the supporting structure, to be designed for seismic loading and poor seismic performance of the wall could impact the seismic performance of that structure.

In addition, according to C11.5.4.2, paragraph 7, a seismic analysis should be considered mandatory if the wall is located in seismic zone 2 or higher, and if either of the following is greater than 30 feet:

The exposed wall height plus the average depth over the width of the wall of any soil surcharge present.

For tiered walls, the sum of the exposed height of all the tiers plus the average soil surcharge depth.

Based on the above listed criteria, it was concluded that the retaining structures along Route 107 do not require an external or internal seismic evaluation, as applicable, due to an adjusted PGA less than 0.4g, and the retaining structures are in Seismic Zone 1 to 3. However, an Extreme Event I Overall Stability Analysis is required for all sites. For this analysis, it was assumed an allowable lateral deformation based on the flexible nature of the types of structure. See the evaluation calculations in Appendix III – Design Analysis for details.

5.3. Recommendations

5.3.1. Site 1

The MSE Wall system must have a maximum height of 31.5 ft, a minimum base of 30.0 ft. Slope face batter must be no steeper than 3V:1H.

5.3.1. Site 2

The MSE Wall system must have a maximum height of 28.5 ft, a minimum base of 22.0 ft. Slope face batter must be no steeper than 3V:1H.

5.3.1. Site 3

The MSE Wall system must have a maximum height of 21.0 ft, a minimum base of 18.0 ft. Slope face batter must be no steeper than 3V:1H.

5.3.1. Site 4

The MSE Wall system must have a maximum height of 12.0 ft, a minimum base of 12.0 ft. Slope face batter must be no steeper than 3V:1H.

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

PAGE 8 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

The soil reinformcement, for all the sites, must comply with FP-14 Table 714-6, Type VI specifications, with a Minimum Nominal Long-Term Strength (MNLTS) of 4000 lb/ft. Vertical spacing of 1.5 ft is required between geogrid layers. Minimum geogrid reinforcement length along the wall must meet or exceed the specified lengths in the contract plans.

5.3.2. Subsurface Water Drainage System

All MSE walls structures must include a subsurface water drainage system composed of granular backfill and a perforated minimum 6 inch diameter pipe. The drainage pipes should be surrounded by a filter fabric to prevent the migration of fines. The perforated pipe will drain subsurface water into a minimum 6 inch non-perforated outlet pipe located at the lowest point behind the wall and at a maximum spacing of 50 feet.

To keep wildlife out of the retaining wall drainage system a 1/4” mesh should be installed to cover the non-perforated pipe outlet.

6. CONSTRUCTION

Site observations and Subsurface exploration reveal the presence of bedrock at the site locations. Coubles, Boulders and Shallow Bedrock may be encountered at different depths and locations. It is responsibility of the contractor to determine the means and method of excavation for the contrsuction of the structures specified in the contract plans.

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

PAGE 9 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

7. REFERENCES

AASHTO-LRFD. (2020). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (9th ed.). Washington, D.C.:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Berg, R., Christopher, B., & Samtani, N. (2009). Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes (Vol. I & II). Washington, D.C.: National Highway Institute (NHI), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. DOT.

FHWA. (2014). Standard Specifications For Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-14). US Department of Transportation. Washington D.C.: US Department of Transportation.

FHWA. (2015). Strength Characterization of Open-Graded Aggregates for Structural Backfills - FHWA- HRT-15-034. McLean: FHWA.

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

PAGE 10 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

8. DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and tests described in this report have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these exploration and tests represent conditions at the specific locations and dates indicated. Subsurface conditions between these locations may vary. The Geotechnical Design Analyses and Recommendations Sections of this report include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing the design. These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor. Our analysis and recommendations are based on boring logs and subsurface profiles prepared by others.

Prepared by:

Jonathan Herrera-Roldán, P.E.

Sr. Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

PAGE 11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

APPENDICES

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Appendix I – Figures

PAGE A - 12

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Figure No. 1

Figure No. 2

PAGE A - 13

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

PAGE A - 14 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Appendix II – Geotechnical Data Report

PAGE A - 14

aecom.com Our Reference 60691052 EFL New River Geotech

1/1

Mr. Jonathan Herrera-Roldan Contractoing Officers Representative Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 220001 Loudoun County arkway Building E-2, Suite 200 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

AECOM

150 Clay Street, Suite 430 Morgantown, WV 26501 aecom.com

December 1, 2022

Your Reference Contract No. 693C7321D000003, Task Order 693C7322F00101N

Our Reference 60691052 EFL New River Geotech

RE: NERI 107(2) Subsurface Exploration and Laboratory Testing in New River Gorge National Park Fayette County, West Virginia

Dear Mr. Herrera-Roldan

We are pleased to submit the attached final geotechnical report (Revision 1, dated 01 DEC 2022) and review comment status in accordance with; Contract No. 693C7321D000003, Task Order 693C7322F00101N, Highway and/or Bridge Design and Engineering Services Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity Contracts (IDIQC), Project:

NERI 107(2) - Subsurface Exploration and Laboratory Testing in New River Gorge National Park Fayette County, West Virginia.

The AECOM team, AECOM and partner Terracon, completed eight (8) borings in the New River Gorge National Park, six (6) along Cunard Road and two (2) along Glade Creek Road and laboratory testing to assist EFLHD in development of engineering parameters for the remediation of subsurface conditions at the site. All borings were advanced with a track-mounted, rotary drill rig using continuous flight hollow stem augers. A split-barrel sampling spoon was utilized to collect samples and to provide the data for the Standard Penetration Test (SPT).

All bore holes were observed by a Geotechnical Inspector and logs maintained. Samples were transported to the laboratory where the Moisture Content, Grain Size Distribution, Unconfined Compression, and Atterberg Limits were determined. The attached final Geotechnical Report provides the in-depth information for this project for your use.

Thank you for the opportunity. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns.

Kind regards, Chris Channell, PE Project Manager

AECOM

T: 304-381-9267 M: 304-290-8127 E: Brian.Channell1@AECOM.com

PAGE A - 15

December 1, 2022

PAGE A - 16

PAGE A - 17

i

PAGE A - 18

i

PAGE A - 19

PAGE A - 20

PAGE A - 21

PAGE A - 22

PAGE A - 23

PAGE A - 24

PAGE A - 25

PAGE A - 26

PAGE A - 27

NP

Rec. = 1.3 ft RQD = 0.4 ft

Rec. = 4.0 ft RQD = 1.2 ft

Rec. = 5.0 ft RQD = 4.0 ft

PAGE A - 28

NP

Rec. = 3.4 ft RQD = 1.1 ft

NP

Rec. = 2.0 ft RQD = 2.1 ft

Rec. = 1.0 ft, RQD = 0.0 ft

Rec. = 5.0 ft, RQD = 0.4 ft

PAGE A - 29

PAGE A - 30

PAGE A - 31

PAGE A - 32

PAGE A - 33

PAGE A - 34

PAGE A - 35

PAGE A - 36

PAGE A - 37

PAGE A - 38

PAGE A - 39

PAGE A - 40

PAGE A - 41

PAGE A - 42

PAGE A - 43

PAGE A - 44

PAGE A - 45

PAGE A - 46

PAGE A - 47

PAGE A - 48

PAGE A - 49

PAGE A - 50

PAGE A - 51

PAGE A - 52

PAGE A - 53

PAGE A - 54

PAGE A - 55

PAGE A - 56

PAGE A - 57

PAGE A - 58

PAGE A - 59

PAGE A - 60

PAGE A - 61

PAGE A - 62

PAGE A - 63

PAGE A - 64

PAGE A - 65

PAGE A - 66

PAGE A - 67

912 Morris Street Charleston, WV 25301

(304) 344-0821

Client: AECOM Design Morgantown, WV Boring No:

Project: NERI 107(2) New River Gorge National Park Depth (ft): 23.8

Project No: N2225050 Test Date: 10/13/2022

Avg. Specimen Diameter (in.): 1.960 Deformation Load Strain Stress Strength Area (in.²): 3.02 (in.) (lbs.) (%) (psi) (tsf)

Avg. Specimen Length (in.): 3.980 0.000 0 0.000 0 0 L/D Ratio: 2.0 0.003 190 0.075 63 5

Natural Density, lb/ft³ 157.1 0.005 600 0.126 199 14

0.008 1240 0.201 411 30

Total Load (lbf.): 34650 0.010 1700 0.251 563 41 Rate of Loading (lbs/sec): 80 0.013 2180 0.327 722 52

Rate of Deformation (in/min): 0.006 0.015 2500 0.377 828 60 Break Time (minutes): 10.00 0.018 3100 0.452 1026 74

0.020 3840 0.503 1272 92 Compressive Strength (psi): 11474 0.023 4600 0.578 1523 110 Compressive Strength (psf): 1652185 0.025 5400 0.628 1788 129 Compressive Strength (tsf): 826 0.028 6450 0.704 2136 154

0.030 7600 0.754 2517 181 Moisture Content (%): 0.02 0.035 10150 0.879 3361 242

0.040 12870 1.005 4262 307 Failure Photograph: 0.045 16000 1.131 5298 381

0.050 21480 1.256 7113 512

0.060 34650 1.508 11474 826

Test sample prepared in general accordance to ASTM D4543

Straightness: Procedure S1 Parallelism: Procedure FP2

Flatness: Procedure FP2 Perpendicularity: Procedure P2

Unconfined Compression Test of Intact Rock Core Report ASTM D 7012 Method C

The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicableto the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.

0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600

U ni t S tr es s

(ts f)

Unit Strain (%)

BH22-02

PAGE A - 68

(304) 344-0821

Client: AECOM Design Morgantown, WV Boring No:

Project: NERI 107(2) New River Gorge National Park Depth (ft): 25.2

Project No: N2225050 Test Date: 10/13/2022

Avg. Specimen Diameter (in.): 1.960 Deformation Load Strain Stress Strength Area (in.²): 3.02 (in.) (lbs.) (%) (psi) (tsf)

Avg. Specimen Length (in.): 4.000 0.000 0 0.000 0 0 L/D Ratio: 2.0 0.003 190 0.075 63 5

Natural Density, lb/ft³ 165.7 0.005 410 0.125 136 10

0.008 700 0.200 232 17

Total Load (lbf.): 23940 0.010 1070 0.250 354 25 Rate of Loading (lbs/sec): 80 0.013 1570 0.325 520 37

Rate of Deformation (in/min): 0.005 0.015 2350 0.375 778 56 Break Time (minutes): 10.00 0.018 3280 0.450 1086 78

0.020 4270 0.500 1414 102 Compressive Strength (psi): 7927 0.023 5430 0.575 1798 129 Compressive Strength (psf): 1141510 0.025 6780 0.625 2245 162 Compressive Strength (tsf): 571 0.028 8650 0.700 2864 206

0.030 10180 0.750 3371 243 Moisture Content (%): 0.03 0.035 14380 0.875 4762 343

0.040 19000 1.000 6291 453 Failure Photograph: 0.045 23940 1.125 7927 571

Test sample prepared in general accordance to ASTM D4543

Straightness: Procedure S1 Parallelism: Procedure FP2

Flatness: Procedure FP2 Perpendicularity: Procedure P2

Unconfined Compression Test of Intact Rock Core Report ASTM D 7012 Method C

The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicableto the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.

0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200

U ni t S tr es s

(ts f)

Unit Strain (%)

BH22-02

PAGE A - 69

(304) 344-0821

Client: AECOM Design Morgantown, WV Boring No:

Project: NERI 107(2) New River Gorge National Park Depth (ft): 20

Project No: N2225050 Test Date: 10/13/2022

Avg. Specimen Diameter (in.): 1.960 Deformation Load Strain Stress Strength Area (in.²): 3.02 (in.) (lbs.) (%) (psi) (tsf)

Avg. Specimen Length (in.): 3.990 0.000 0 0.000 0 0 L/D Ratio: 2.0 0.003 390 0.075 129 9

Natural Density, lb/ft³ 165.7 0.005 910 0.125 301 22

0.008 1460 0.201 483 35

Total Load (lbf.): 41210 0.010 2040 0.251 675 49 Rate of Loading (lbs/sec): 110 0.013 2730 0.326 904 65

Rate of Deformation (in/min): 0.009 0.015 3500 0.376 1159 83 Break Time (minutes): 7.00 0.018 4310 0.451 1427 103

0.020 5300 0.501 1755 126 Compressive Strength (psi): 13646 0.023 6390 0.576 2116 152 Compressive Strength (psf): 1964980 0.025 7500 0.627 2483 179 Compressive Strength (tsf): 983 0.028 8740 0.702 2894 208

0.030 10250 0.752 3394 244 Moisture Content (%): 0.01 0.035 13780 0.877 4563 329

0.040 19150 1.003 6341 457 Failure Photograph: 0.045 25350 1.128 8394 604

0.050 31990 1.253 10593 763

0.060 41210 1.504 13646 983

Test sample prepared in general accordance to ASTM D4543

Straightness: Procedure S1 Parallelism: Procedure FP2

Flatness: Procedure FP2 Perpendicularity: Procedure P2

Unconfined Compression Test of Intact Rock Core Report ASTM D 7012 Method C

The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicableto the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.

0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600

U ni t S tr es s

(ts f)

Unit Strain (%)

BH22-03

PAGE A - 70

(304) 344-0821

Client: AECOM Design Morgantown, WV Boring No:

Project: NERI 107(2) New River Gorge National Park Depth (ft): 23

Project No: N2225050 Test Date: 10/13/2022

Avg. Specimen Diameter (in.): 1.960 Deformation Load Strain Stress Strength Area (in.²): 3.02 (in.) (lbs.) (%) (psi) (tsf)

Avg. Specimen Length (in.): 4.000 0.000 0 0.000 0 0 L/D Ratio: 2.0 0.003 320 0.075 106 8

Natural Density, lb/ft³ 171.4 0.005 900 0.125 298 21

0.008 1650 0.200 546 39

Total Load (lbf.): 41020 0.010 2500 0.250 828 60 Rate of Loading (lbs/sec): 110 0.013 3730 0.325 1235 89

Rate of Deformation (in/min): 0.008 0.015 4990 0.375 1652 119 Break Time (minutes): 6.10 0.018 6380 0.450 2113 152

0.020 8050 0.500 2666 192 Compressive Strength (psi): 13583 0.023 10080 0.575 3338 240 Compressive Strength (psf): 1955921 0.025 11620 0.625 3848 277 Compressive Strength (tsf): 978 0.028 14150 0.700 4685 337

0.030 17070 0.750 5652 407 Moisture Content (%): 0.02 0.035 23700 0.875 7848 565

0.040 30380 1.000 10060 724 Failure Photograph: 0.045 35000 1.125 11589 834

0.050 41020 1.250 13583 978

Test sample prepared in general accordance to ASTM D4543

Straightness: Procedure S1 Parallelism: Procedure FP2

Flatness: Procedure FP2 Perpendicularity: Procedure P2

Unconfined Compression Test of Intact Rock Core Report ASTM D 7012 Method C

The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicableto the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.

0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400

U ni t S tr es s

(ts f)

Unit Strain (%)

BH22-05

PAGE A - 71

(304) 344-0821

Client: AECOM Design Morgantown, WV Boring No:

Project: NERI 107(2) New River Gorge National Park Depth (ft): 18

Project No: N2225050 Test Date: 10/13/2022

Avg. Specimen Diameter (in.): 1.960 Deformation Load Strain Stress Strength Area (in.²): 3.02 (in.) (lbs.) (%) (psi) (tsf)

Avg. Specimen Length (in.): 4.010 0.000 0 0.000 0 0 L/D Ratio: 2.1 0.003 220 0.075 73 5

Natural Density, lb/ft³ 171.4 0.005 350 0.125 116 8

0.008 770 0.200 255 18

Total Load (lbf.): 11180 0.010 990 0.249 328 24 Rate of Loading (lbs/sec): 110 0.013 1200 0.324 397 29

Rate of Deformation (in/min): 0.019 0.015 1500 0.374 497 36 Break Time (minutes): 3.15 0.018 1800 0.449 596 43

0.020 2230 0.499 738 53 Compressive Strength (psi): 3702 0.023 2600 0.574 861 62 Compressive Strength (psf): 533086 0.025 3000 0.623 993 71 Compressive Strength (tsf): 267 0.028 3470 0.698 1149 83

0.030 4000 0.748 1325 95 Moisture Content (%): 0.02 0.035 5090 0.873 1685 121

0.040 6350 0.998 2103 151 Failure Photograph: 0.045 7670 1.122 2540 183

0.050 9020 1.247 2987 215

0.060 11180 1.496 3702 267

Test sample prepared in general accordance to ASTM D4543

Straightness: Procedure S1 Parallelism: Procedure FP2

Flatness: Procedure FP2 Perpendicularity: Procedure P2

Unconfined Compression Test of Intact Rock Core Report ASTM D 7012 Method C

The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicableto the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.

0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600

U ni t S tr es s

(ts f)

Unit Strain (%)

BH22-06

PAGE A - 72

PAGE A - 73

PAGE A - 74

DxD

)(D

PAGE A - 75

PAGE A - 76

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

PAGE A - 77 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Appendix III – Design Analysis

PAGE A - 77

1.481.48

250.00 lbs/ft2

1.481.48

Phi (deg)

Cohesion (psf)

Strength Type

Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name

360Mohr- Coulomb115Granular Backfill

280Mohr- Coulomb115Clayey Sand (SC) and Sandy Lean Clay (CL)

360Mohr- Coulomb120Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC) & Silty Gravel with

Sand (GM)

300Mohr- Coulomb115Sandy Lean Clay (CL)

45500Mohr- Coulomb160Siltstone

Connection Strength (lbs/ft)

Connection Strength Input

Allowable Tensile Strength (lbs/ft)

Strip Coverage

AnchorageForce

Orientation Coefficient of

Interaction Force

ApplicationTypeColorSupport Name

4000Constant4000100Slope FaceParallel to Reinforcement0.67

Active (Method GeosyntheticType VI

31.50 ft

30.00 ft

3.0

Safety Factor 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00+

-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

SCENARIO: Static - (C) - Overall SITE: Site No. 1, STA 101+40

DATE: 7/31/2023 By: J. Herrera-Roldan

SCALE: 1:500

PROJECT: WV NP NERI 107(2)

PAGE A - 78

1.371.371.371.37

Phi (deg)

Cohesion (psf)

Strength Type

Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name

360Mohr- Coulomb115Granular Backfill

280Mohr- Coulomb115Clayey Sand (SC) and Sandy Lean Clay (CL)

360Mohr- Coulomb120Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC) & Silty Gravel with

Sand (GM)

300Mohr- Coulomb115Sandy Lean Clay (CL)

45500Mohr- Coulomb160Siltstone

Connection Strength (lbs/ft)

Connection Strength Input

Allowable Tensile Strength (lbs/ft)

Strip Coverage

AnchorageForce

Orientation Coefficient of

Interaction Force

ApplicationTypeColorSupport Name

4000Constant4000100Slope FaceParallel to Reinforcement0.67

Active (Method GeosyntheticType VI

31.50 ft

30.00 ft

3.0

Safety Factor 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00+

-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

SCENARIO: Seismic- (C) - Compound SITE: Site No. 1, STA 101+40

DATE: 7/31/2023 By: J. Herrera-Roldan

SCALE: 1:500

PAGE A - 79

1.621.62

1.621.62

Connection Strength (lbs/ft)

Allowable Tensile

Strength (lbs/ ft)

Strip Coverage

AnchorageForce

Orientation Coefficient of Interaction

Input TypeMaterial Dependent

Force ApplicationTypeColorSupport

Name

40004000100Slope FaceParallel to Reinforcement0.67

Coefficient of NoActive

(Method A)GeosyntheticType VI

Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeUnit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name 360Mohr-Coulomb115Granular Backfill

280Mohr-Coulomb110Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel

300Mohr-Coulomb120Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)

45500Mohr-Coulomb160Sandstone

Safety Factor 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00+

-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0

SCENARIO: Static - (C) - Compound SITE: Site No. 2, STA 103+20

DATE: 8/1/2023 By: J. Herrera-Roldan

SCALE: 1:500

PAGE A - 80

1.471.471.471.47

Connection Strength (lbs/ft)

Allowable Tensile

Strength (lbs/ ft)

Strip Coverage

AnchorageForce

Orientation Coefficient of Interaction

Input TypeMaterial Dependent

Force ApplicationTypeColorSupport

Name

40004000100Slope FaceParallel to Reinforcement0.67

Coefficient of NoActive

(Method A)GeosyntheticType VI

0.039

Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Strength TypeUnit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name 360Mohr-Coulomb115Granular Backfill

280Mohr-Coulomb110Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel

300Mohr-Coulomb120Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)

45500Mohr-Coulomb160Sandstone

Safety Factor 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00+

-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0

SCENARIO: Seismic- (C) - Compound SITE: Site No. 2, STA 103+20

DATE: 8/1/2023 By: J. Herrera-Roldan

SCALE: 1:500

PAGE A - 81

1.461.46

1.461.46

Connection Strength (lbs/ ft)

Connection Strength

Input

Allowable Tensile Strength

(lbs/ft)

Strip Coverage

AnchorageForce

Orientation Coefficient of Interaction

Force ApplicationTypeColorSupport

Name

4000Constant4000100Slope FaceParallel to Reinforcement0.67Active

(Method A)GeosyntheticType VI

Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name 360115Granular Backfill

280105Silty Clayey Gravel with Sand

380130Weathered Sandstone

45500160Sandstone

Safety Factor 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00+

-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

SCENARIO: Static - (C) - Overall SITE: Site No. 3, STA 105+00

DATE: 8/1/2023 By: J. Herrera-Roldan

SCALE: 1:500

PAGE A - 82

1.341.341.341.34

Connection Strength (lbs/ ft)

Connection Strength

Input

Allowable Tensile Strength

(lbs/ft)

Strip Coverage

AnchorageForce

Orientation Coefficient of Interaction

Force ApplicationTypeColorSupport

Name

4000Constant4000100Slope FaceParallel to Reinforcement0.67Active

(Method A)GeosyntheticType VI

0.039

Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name 360115Granular Backfill

280105Silty Clayey Gravel with Sand

380130Weathered Sandstone

45500160Sandstone

Safety Factor 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00+

-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

SCENARIO: Seismic - (C) - Overall SITE: Site No. 3, STA 105+00

DATE: 8/1/2023 By: J. Herrera-Roldan

SCALE: 1:500

PAGE A - 83

2.142.14

W

W

250.00 lbs/ft2

2.142.14

Connection Strength (lbs/ft)

Connection Strength Input

Allowable Tensile Strength (lbs/ft)

Strip Coverage

AnchorageForce

Orientation Coefficient of

Interaction Force

ApplicationTypeColorSupport Name

4000Constant4000100Slope FaceParallel to Reinforcement0.67

Active (Method

A) GeosyntheticType VI

Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name 360115Granular Backfill

280110Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC)

380130Weathered Silstone

45500160Silstone

Safety Factor 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00+

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

SCENARIO: Static - (C) - Overall SITE: Site No. 4, STA 108+60

DATE: 8/2/2023 By: J. Herrera-Roldan

SCALE: 1:400

PAGE A - 84

1.931.93

W

W

250.00 lbs/ft2

1.931.93

Phi (deg)Cohesion (psf)Unit Weight (lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial Name 360115Granular Backfill

280110Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC)

380130Weathered Silstone

45500160Silstone

Connection Strength (lbs/ft)

Connection Strength Input

Allowable Tensile Strength (lbs/ft)

Strip Coverage

AnchorageForce

Orientation Coefficient of

Interaction Force

ApplicationTypeColorSupport Name

4000Constant4000100Slope FaceParallel to Reinforcement0.67

Active (Method

A) GeosyntheticType VI

0.039

Safety Factor 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00+

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

SCENARIO: Seismic- (C) - Compound SITE: Site No. 4, STA 108+60

DATE: 8/2/2023 By: J. Herrera-Roldan

SCALE: 1:400

PAGE A - 85

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Appendix V – Site Photographs

PAGE A - 86

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Figure No. 1: Cunnard River Access Road (Route 107).

Figure No. 2: Cunnard River Access Road (Route 107). Exposed bedrock.

PAGE A - 87

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Figure No. 3: Cunnard River Access Road (Route 107).

Figure No. 4: Cunnard River Access Road (Route 107).

PAGE A - 88

NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, WEST VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

ASHBURN, VA

Figure No. 5: Cunnard River Access Road (Route 107).

Figure No. 6: Cunnard River Access Road (Route 107).

PAGE A - 89