00 31 32 - Geotechnical Data.pdf

00 31 32 – GEOTECHNICAL DATA

Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. 00 31 32 - 1 005153.0436

SECTION 00 31 32 - GEOTECHNICAL DATA

PART 1 - GENERAL

1.1 SECTION INCLUDES

A. Available Technical Data.

1.2 TECHNICAL DATA

A. This Section with its attachments is referenced in Paragraph 5.03 of Section 00 72 00 – General Conditions as Technical Data. They provide Owner's information for Bidders' convenience and are intended to supplement rather than serve in lieu of Bidders' own investigations. They are made available for Bidders' convenience and information, but are not a warranty of existing conditions. This Document and its attachments are not part of the Contract Documents.

B. The following soil-boring data was obtained for the Project and is available for viewing on PennBid:

1. Geotechnical Engineering Report – Skytop Lodge Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)

Improvements Canadensis, PA, by Pennoni, July 20, 2026; 30 pages.

C. The following geotechnical investigation report was prepared for the Project and is available for viewing on PennBid:

1. Geotechnical Engineering Report – Skytop Lodge Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)

Improvements Canadensis, PA, by Pennoni, July 20, 2026; 30 pages.

D. Related Requirements:

1. Section 00 21 13 - Instructions to Bidders for the Bidder's responsibilities for examination of Project site and existing conditions.

END OF SECTION

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING REPORT

Skytop Lodge Sewage Treatment Plant

(STP) Improvements

Canadensis, PA

Submitted To:

Mr. Brian Strader Skytop Lodge 1 Skytop Lodge Road Skytop, PA 18357

SKLOD26001

July 20, 2026

81 Highland Avenue, Suite 230 T: 610-422-2411 www.pennoni.com Bethlehem, PA 18017 i

July 20, 2026

SKLOD26001

Mr. Brian Strader

Skytop Lodge

1 Skytop Lodge Road Skytop, PA 18357

RE: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

Skytop Lodge Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Improvements

Canadensis, PA

Dear Mr. Strader:

We are pleased to submit our geotechnical engineering report for the proposed improvements to the sewage treatment plant at 5171-5179 Falls Road, Canadensis, PA. Our services were initiated in general accordance with the Scope of Services presented in our proposal dated February 10, 2026.

We trust that the information presented in this report is what you require at this time, and we thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project. If you have any questions, or if you need any further assistance with this project, please contact this office at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully, PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC.

Eric Stanwood, PE Frederick A. Brinker, PE

Senior Engineer Vice President

Geotechnical Division Manager

Skytop Lodge STP Improvements Canadensis, PA 18325 July 20, 2026 SKLOD26001 i

CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction

2.1. Proposed Construct ion

2.2. Object ives

3. Field and Laboratory Work

3.1. Field Work

3.2. Laboratory Work

4. Site Character ist ics

4.1. Locat ion and Surface Features

4.2. Geology

4.3. Subsurface Condit ions

4.4. Groundwater

5. Analysis and Recommendations

5.1. Earthwork

5.1.1. Soils

5.1.2. Rock

5.2. Foundations

5.3. Slabs

5.4. Sett lement

5.5. Seismic Site Classif icat ion

5.6. Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters

5.7. Groundwater and Surface Water Management

5.8. Construct ion Diff icult ies

6. Recommendations for Further Geotechnical Services

7. Limitations

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Field Data Appendix B: Laboratory Data Appendix C: Standard Symbols

TABLES

Table 1: Geotechnical Laboratory Program Table 2: Strata Descriptions Table 3: Depth and Elevation to Refusal Table 4: Compaction Requirements Table 5: Seismic Parameters Table 6: Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters

1. Executive Summary The results of our geotechnical study are summarized below. The executive summary should be used in conjunction with the body of the report as it details our recommendations.

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND SITE CONDITIONS SECTION(S)

Proposed Construction

A new series of new reinforced concrete process tanks that extend to depths of 20 ft below the existing ground surface. The new structure will have a maximum bearing pressure of approximately 2,000 psf.

2.1

Surface Materials

1 in. thick layer of asphalt millings to the south portion of the site in the existing parking area. Boulders and rock outcrops were encountered at the surface on the northern portion of the site.

4.1, 4.2

Rock

Auger refusal was encountered in Borings B-3, B-4, and B-5A at depths ranging from 4.0 ft to 25.0 ft below the surface (approx. Elev. 1341.2 to Elev.

1386.0). DCP testing refusal was encountered at depths of 1.6 ft to 2.6 ft

(Elev. 1389.4 and Elev. 1395.9).

4.3

Subsoils

ASPHALT – 1 in. thick layer of asphalt millings

STRATUM F – Reddish brown and back and gray f/c angular GRAVEL, some to and f/m/c sand, little to trace silt/clay

STRATUM 1 – Grey to reddish brown f/c angular GRAVEL, some c/m/f sand, little silt/clay

STRATUM 2 – Reddish brown to gray f/m/c SAND, some silt/clay, some c/f angular gravel

STRATUM BR – Light gray to dark gray SANDSTONE, moderately to highly weathered, crushed to close slightly dipping to horizontal fractures, hard to very hard

4.3

Field Work

Four (4) SPT borings were drilled on May 19 and May 20, 2026. The borings extended to depths ranging 4.0 ft to 25.0 ft below the existing ground surface

(Elev. 1334.2 to Elev. 1386.0). Three (3) dynamic cone penetration (DCP) tests were completed on July 3, 2026. The DCP tests extended to depths ranging 1.6 ft to 2.6 ft below the existing ground surface (Elev. 1389.4 and Elev. 1395.9).

3.1

RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION(S)

Seismic Site Class

Site Class C – Very dense soil and soft rock in accordance with IBC 2018. 5.5

Lift Thickness and Compaction Requirements

Fine Grained Soil – 8 to 10 in. thick layers loose measure; Granular Soil – 10 to

12 in. thick layers loose measure.

Foundations 98% (standard Proctor) or 95% (modified Proctor) depending on compaction equipment used.

5.1

Foundations

Shallow spread footings bearing on firm/dense Strata F, 1, or 2 soils or structural Fill can be designed with an allowable net soil bearing capacity of up to 5,000 psf. Footings bearing on sound rock can be designed with an allowable bearing capacity of up to 10,000 psf.

5.2

Settlement Total and differential settlements are anticipated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 in., respectively.

5.4

Frost Depth 48 in. below finished exterior grades. 5.2

Slabs The slabs should be placed on firm/dense newly compacted granular structural fill and can be designed using a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of 150 pci.

5.3

Groundwater

(GW)

Groundwater was encountered at depths of 16.0 ft and 25.0 ft in Borings B-3 and B-4, respectively (Elev. 1343.2 and Elev. 1334.2).

4.3, 5.7

2. Introduction

2.1. Proposed Construction

Based on the information provided, we understand that the designated area is being considered for a series of new reinforced concrete process tanks that extend to depths of up to approximately 20 ft below the existing ground surface. Upon review of the project drawings provided by Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. (HRG), dated

April 2026, we understand that the allowable bearing capacity for the foundations was presumed to be a minimum of 2,000 psf.

2.2. Objectives

The objectives of this geotechnical study were to determine subsurface conditions at the project site, evaluate these conditions with respect to the anticipated construction, and present our conclusions and recommendations.

Our geotechnical engineering report addresses the following:

Impacts of the soil and rock conditions on the proposed construction;

Foundation design, including a discussion of alternate solutions, if applicable, anticipated total and differential settlement;

Design frost depth;

Ground slab design;

Discussion of potential for consolidation and/or differential settlements of substrata encountered;

“General procedure” Seismic Soil Site Classification in accordance with the International Building

Code;

Evaluation and determination of the earthwork requirements for use in preparation of the site area, including material selection and placement operations;

Suitability of on-site materials for re-use as fill/backfill as part of the site work of the project;

Lateral earth pressure parameters;

Groundwater conditions;

Removal or treatment of objectionable material;

Quality assurance, field-testing, and observation during construction.

3. Field and Laboratory Work

3.1. Field Work

Four (4) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were drilled on May 19 and May 20, 2026, by Eichelbergers, Inc., using a track-mounted drill rig with hollow stem auger and spin casing drilling methods. The boring locations were selected by HRG prior to the field work and established in the field by Pennoni personnel, at the approximate location presented in the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan (Drawing LP-1). Borings were extended to depths ranging 4.0 ft to 25.0 ft below the existing ground surface (Elev. 1334.2 to Elev. 1386.0). Borings B-3 and B-4 were continuously sampled to 10.0 ft, and then sampled in 5 ft intervals before encountering refusal of the drilling tools.

Borings B-5 and B-5A were conducted in areas were boulders covered the ground surface. Unsampled spin casing drilling was conducted from 0.0 ft to 6.0 ft in boring B-5 before rock coring. Unsampled spin casing drilling was conducted from 0.0 ft to 2.0 ft in boring B-5A and the sampled to spoon refusal at 4.0 ft. Borings B-1 and B-2 were not completed due to accessibility constraints that prevented the drill rig and driller’s truck from reaching the proposed locations.

Soil and rock sampling was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1586 and D 2113 methods. Upon completion, the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings mixed with bentonite. The excess soil was mounded above the borehole.

Three (3) dynamic cone penetration (DCP) tests were conducted on July 3, 2026, by Pennoni personnel at the

B-1 and B-2 locations using a “standard” 10 sq cm (projected area) cone tip to determine cone penetration resistance from which relative density, bearing capacity, consistency, etc., can be estimated. Cone penetration resistance values are obtained every 4 in. (10 cm) by dropping a 35-lb hammer at a distance of 15 inches, and the number of drops required to drive the tip through each 4-inch interval is recorded. The DCP test locations were selected in the field by Pennoni with DCPT-1 conducted at the location selected for B-1 and DCPT-2 was done as close as practical to B-2 within the vicinity of the tank footprint, as shown on the Boring and DCPT Location Plan

(Drawing LP-1).

Our E. Stanwood directed the field study, and our M. Anderson provided full-time observation of the test borings and DCP testing. Appendix A includes the boring logs, DCP testing logs, and the Boring and DCPT Location Plan

(Drawing LP-1).

3.2. Laboratory Work

The soil samples collected during our field study were delivered to our laboratory for testing. Table 1 below summarizes the geotechnical laboratory program.

Table 1: Geotechnical Laboratory Program

TEST

ASTM/AASHTO

NO.

NUMBER OF TESTS

Moisture Content D 2216 4

Sieve Analysis D 6913 4

Appendix B includes the laboratory testing results and a list of testing procedures.

4. Site Characteristics

4.1. Location and Surface Features

The project site is located at 5171-5179 Falls Road, Canadensis, PA 18325. The site is occupied by an existing sewage treatment plant. The project site is bound to the north, east, west, and south by forested areas and steep slopes. Based on the map of existing grading conditions provided by Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc., the site generally slopes toward the south, with ground elevations ranging from approximately Elev. 1330.0 to Elev.

1405.0.

The project area outside of the existing STP facility and driveway/parking area was characterized by abundant surface boulders. Steep south sloping ridges revealed rock outcrops under a shallow soil layer along the north section of the project site. Specifically, the intended area for boring B-2 was not approachable with the drill rig provided by Eichelbergers, Inc., or by foot due to restricted access resulting from fallen trees, dense vegetation, and excessively steep, rocky terrain.

Figure 1: Site Location

4.2. Geology

The project site is located within the Glaciated Low Plateau Section of the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic

Province of Pennsylvania. The topography consists of rounded hills and broad to narrow valleys all of which have been modified by glacial erosion and deposition. The Glaciated Low Plateau Section reflects the interplay between bedrock of various types, mainly sandstones and siltstones, and glacial erosion and deposition. The more erosion-resistant rocks form the hills, while the less erosion-resistant rocks occur in the valleys. Glacial deposits, mainly glacial till or sand and gravel, may occur anywhere, but are found mainly in the valley bottoms and margins. Based on Pennsylvania geologic mapping, the project site is underlain by rocks belonging to the Long Run and

Walcksville Members of the Catskill Formation. Available geologic data indicates that these members of this

Formation consist of alternating fine to medium grained red, gray, greenish-gray, and grayish-red sandstone, siltstone, and shale. The rocks that form this Formation are moderately resistant to weathering. The literature indicates the overlying mantle is thin.

4.3. Subsurface Conditions

Borings B-3 and B-4 disclosed a 1 in. thick layer of asphalt millings at the surface of the south end of the project area. Boulders and rock outcrops were observed at the surface along the northern portion of the project site.

Topsoil was visually observed between boulders but unable to be sampled due to the size of the gaps. We have grouped the soils underlying the asphalt into 4 principal strata based on the engineering properties and our interpretation of their origin. A brief stratum description is presented below:

Table 2: Strata Descriptions

STRATUM THICKNESS (FT) DESCRIPTION

F 13.0

STRATUM F: Fill - Reddish brown and black and gray f/c angular GRAVEL, some to and f/m/c sand, little to trace silt/clay

1 2.0 – 7.0 STRATUM 1: Grey to reddish brown f/c angular GRAVEL, some c/m/f sand, little silt/clay

2 5.0 STRATUM 2: Reddish brown to gray f/m/c SAND, some silt/clay, some c/f angular gravel

BR -

STRATUM BR: Light gray to dark gray SANDSTONE, moderately to highly weathered, crushed to close slightly dipping to horizontal fractures, hard to very hard

The DCP results generally indicate that the subgrade soil is generally very stiff to hard; refusal to further advance with the DCP tool was encountered at approximately 1.6 to 2.6 ft below the exposed grade.

Refusal to further penetration of the drilling tools was encountered in Borings B-3, B-4, and B-5A, and in DCPTs 1, 1A, and 2. Generally, refusal of drilling equipment is inferred to be top of rock, but could also be caused by other obstructions, such as boulders. Rock coring was performed in Borings B-3 and B-5 from depths of 16.0 ft to 21.0 ft and 6.0 ft to 11.0 ft, respectively. The average rock core recovery (REC) value was 79.0%, and the average rock quality designation (RQD) was 16%. The RQD (ASTM D 6032) is a measure of rock mass integrity determined by summing the pieces of rock core sample that are longer than 4 in. and dividing that total by the overall core run length in inches.

Table 3 presents the approximate depths and elevations at which drilling refusal was encountered.

Table 3: Depth and Elevation to Refusal

Boring Number Refusal Depth (ft) Elevation (ft)

B-3 16.0 1343.2

B-4 25.0 1334.2

B-5A 4.0 1386.0

DCPT-1 2.0 1395.5

DCPT-1A 1.6 1395.9

DCPT-2 2.6 1389.4

4.4. Groundwater

Groundwater observations were made in each of the boring locations during and shortly after completion.

Groundwater was encountered in borings B-3 and B-4 at depths of 16.0 ft and 25.0 ft respectively (Elev. 1343.2 and Elev. 1334.2). These observations are for the times indicated and may not reflect seasonal or daily variations in groundwater levels.

5. Analysis and Recommendations

5.1. Earthwork

5.1.1. Soils

The finished floor elevations (FFEs) of the proposed reinforced concrete process tanks were not available at the time of this report. Finished grade of the ground surface area is assumed to be similar to surrounding structures. Cuts on the order up to 27.0 ft are anticipated to attain the bottom elevations for the proposed structures. Fills on the order up to 10.0 ft are anticipated to attain the surface grade within the project site.

Prior to construction, all topsoil must be removed from within the proposed area of construction. Any existing utilities located within the proposed construction area should be abandoned and relocated outside the proposed footprint. Any existing utility line abandoned in place should be grouted, or the line should be removed, and the trench appropriately backfilled.

Exposed subgrades should be thoroughly proof-rolled in the presence of a Pennoni representative using a loaded dump truck or a minimum 10-ton vibratory roller. Where space is limited, subgrade soils should be manually probed in an attempt to disclose unstable surface areas. Any unstable surface areas (soft, yielding, etc.) found should be stabilized by excavating and replacing those soils with suitable soil that is adequately compacted. This can be accomplished by properly adjusting the moisture content of the subgrade soils and compacting them, or by other methods (placing a geotextile and stone layer, etc. or soil exchange).

Our experience indicates that the on-site, near-surface soils of Strata 1 and 2 can be reused for construction, provided all organics, if encountered, and rock fragments larger than 3 in. in its greatest dimension are removed prior to reuse. Laboratory testing of the near surface Strata F, 1, and 2 soils disclosed varying amounts of fine grained materials (silt and clay) on the order of 7% to 32%. Additionally, the present moisture content of the soils (4.2% to 10.1%) is at or below the optimum moisture content normally associated with these soils to achieve the desired degree of compaction. It is recommended that all site preparation and earthwork operations be carried out in the full-time presence of a qualified representative of the geotechnical engineer.

If necessary, imported structural fill should be selected from suitable borrow sources and be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer well in advance of fill construction. Granular fill ideally should consist of well-graded material with not more than 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and have a plasticity index not greater than 8 percent; PennDOT 2A or recycled concrete with a gradation similar to that described above with a maximum particle size of 3 in. can be considered and crushed aggregate such as AASHTO #57 stone should be considered for fill placement below groundwater levels. Other gradations can be considered based on laboratory testing and at the discretion of the Geotechnical Engineer.

Fine grained and granular fills should be placed in layers not exceeding 8 to 10 in. and 10 to 12 in. loose thickness, respectively. This criterion might be adjusted by the geotechnical engineer in the field depending on the conditions present at the time of construction, and on the compaction equipment used, and the fill materials selected. Table 4 below presents the compaction requirements.

Table 4: Compaction Requirements

FILLS SUPPORTING

STANDARD PROCTOR

(ASTM D698)

MODIFIED PROCTOR

(ASTM D1557)

Foundations 98% 95%

Slab-on-Grade 98% 95%

Fills should be compacted to ASTM D 698 percentages of the laboratory determined maximum dry density when small, hand-operated compaction equipment is used, and to ASTM D 1557 percentages of the laboratory determined maximum dry density, when self-propelled, heavy-duty construction equipment is used. Fills should extend a minimum of 5 ft beyond the exterior edge of a loaded area and have side slopes not steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.

Specifications should indicate that the percentage of maximum dry density attained in the field is not the only criteria to be used for assessing fill compaction. Observation of the behavior of the fill under the loads of construction equipment should also be used. If the test results indicate that the percentage of compaction is being achieved, but the soil mass is moving under the equipment, placement of additional fill should not be continued until the movement is stabilized. Otherwise, settlement of the fill may occur.

5.1.2. Rock

A comparison of the estimated top-of-rock elevation to our assumptions of finished grade elevations throughout the site indicates that rock will be encountered during excavation of foundations and associated piping. The extent of rippability will be dependent on the degree of weathering, and the spacing, orientation and frequency of the discontinuities present within the rock mass. The rock core samples recovered appear to be highly fractured based on visual observations and recorded RQD values. Large aerial excavations into the weathered rock are expected to be possible using large track-mounted excavation equipment fitted with rock rippers. Confined excavations in weathered rock for trenches or foundations may require blasting, pre-drilling and splitting, or use of hydraulic rams.

Alternative options for rock excavation are as follows:

• Hydraulic Ram – The use of hydraulic rams is acceptable for excavation of rock. Hydraulic rams typically require a longer period of time to complete the task and are generally more costly than blasting for larger excavations.

• Pre-drilling and Splitting – Excavation of rock may be achieved by pre-drilling holes with an air-track type machine. Once the holes are drilled and the rock is split, the rock debris can be removed with a back-hoe. Pre-drilling also is less cost effective than blasting.

• Blasting – Blasting is one of the most inexpensive and efficient methods of rock excavation. Blasting should be performed by qualified contractors and abide by state, and local, policies and regulations, including vibration monitoring. When performed by well qualified personnel experienced with blasting, vibrations can be minimized resulting in no disturbance to the surrounding existing structures.

Refusal to further penetration of the soil drilling tools was encountered in Borings B-3, B-4, and B-5A at depths ranging from 4.0 ft to 25.0 ft below the ground surface (Elev. 1334.2 to Elev. 1386.0). Refusal of DCP testing equipment was encountered in all DCP test locations at depths from 1.6 ft to 2.6 ft below ground surface elevation (Elev. 1389.4 and Elev. 1395.9). As discussed in Section 4.3 generally, refusal of the drilling equipment was encountered in all borings and DCP tests and is inferred as top of rock, but could also be other obstructions (boulders or debris).

5.2. Foundations

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, and our experience, we recommend that the proposed structures be supported by shallow spread footings. Footings bearing on densified Strata F, 1, and 2 soils or newly placed structural fill can be designed for an allowable net bearing capacity of 5,000 psf, and up to

10,000 psf if bearing on competent rock.

If a footing will bear partially on soil and rock, rock should be removed to a depth on the order of 6 to 12 inches below the foundation bottoms and replaced with densified compacted aggregate to reduce cracking potential caused by differential settlements between footings bearing directly on rock and footings on soil. Additional longitudinal reinforcement should be considered in the foundation to reduce cracking potential as well.

Soft subgrade conditions, if encountered during foundation construction, should be probed and evaluated by a representative of Pennoni to determine the depth of acceptable, stable bearing conditions. Soft soils should be removed, as required, and replaced with suitable load-bearing structural fill. (PennDOT 2A, recycled concrete, etc.)

placed in layers and compacted as stipulated in Section 5.1. The width of the foundation undercut should be equal to the footing width plus 1 ft for every 1 ft of depth excavated below the footing bottom.

Continuous and isolated footings should be at least 2 ft wide and 3 ft square, respectively, to prevent localized shear failure in soil. The subgrade of all exterior footings and any other foundation exposed to freezing temperatures, during construction and/or the life of the structure, should be established at least 48 in. below adjacent exposed grades or otherwise protected against frost action. Foundation subgrades should be checked by a representative of Pennoni to confirm conditions suitable for the support of the design bearing pressure. Areas in question should be further explored and /or remedied by removal and replacement of unsuitable material.

5.3. Slabs

The slabs can be supported on-grade on densified Strata F, 1, and 2 soils or newly compacted load-bearing fill. All topsoil must be removed below the proposed slab areas. Prior to placing the new fill, the exposed subgrades consisting of fill should be adequately densified with a minimum 10-ton roller. Isolated soil exchanges of the subgrades may be necessary if soft/loose areas are encountered. The unstable soils should be removed to a depth defined based on conditions encountered. Existing soils found to be unsuitable (wet, soft, unstable) for re-use should be removed.

A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci is recommended for the slabs. These recommendations are based on values typically obtained from 1 ft x 1 ft plate load tests at the surface. However, depending on how the slab load is applied, the value will have to be geometrically modified. The values should be adjusted for larger areas using the following expressions for cohesive and cohesionless soils:

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: 𝑘𝑠 = ( 𝑘

𝐵 ) for cohesive soils 𝑘𝑠 = 𝑘 ( 𝐵+1

2𝐵 for cohesionless soils

Where: 𝑘𝑠 = coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction for loaded area, 𝑘 = coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction for 1x1 sf area, and

𝐵 = width of area loaded, in feet

A 6 in. thick free-draining granular base course should be placed beneath the slab to provide a uniform bearing surface and to aid in the proper curing of the slab concrete. At least 6 in. should be maintained between the bottom of the floor slab and the tops of the foundations to minimize the potential for floor slab cracking at the foundation edges or the slabs should be designed accordingly to minimize cracking. The slabs should be isolated from other structural elements of the building to allow for independent movements.

5.4. Settlement

Settlement of a soil mass is a function of the characteristics of the supporting soils (type of soil, void ratio, pre-consolidation, etc.), the thickness of the layer(s), and the stresses imposed on the soils by an applied load (fill, shallow foundations, floor slab, etc.). The stresses affecting subsoils generally decrease with increasing depth and are variable based on the magnitude and area of applied loading. Provided that the recommendations discussed herein are followed immediate and differential settlements are expected to be less than 1 in. and

1/2 in., respectively.

5.5. Seismic Site Classification

Based on the sampling performed in the SPT borings, a Site Class C, as classified in general accordance with

Table 20.2-1 of ASCE 7-16, is recommended. Site Class determination is based on the properties in the upper

100 ft of the ground surface. The borings performed herein by Pennoni were advanced to a maximum depth of

25.0 ft. Values beyond 25.0 ft were estimated based on our local experience in this area. The following design parameters in Table 5 can be used to design the structure in accordance with the ASCE 7-16.

Table 5: Seismic Parameters Description Parameter Recommended Value

MCE_R Ground Motion (period = 0.2s) Ss 0.157

MCE_R Ground Motion (period = 1.0s) S1 0.048

Seismic Site Class - C

Site Amplification Factor at 0.2s Fa 1.3

Site Amplification Factor at 1.0s Fv 1.5

Numeric Seismic Design Value at 0.2s SA SDS 0.136

Numeric Seismic Design Value at 1.0s SA SD1 0.048

5.6. Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters

The soil parameters presented in Table 6 can be used to estimate lateral earth pressures on below grade structures and temporary shoring. If the top of the structure is restrained from movement, thereby preventing the mobilization of active soil pressures, the structure should be designed using the at-rest pressure coefficient, ko.

The earth pressure coefficients are based on the assumption of vertical walls, horizontal backfill, no surcharges, no wall friction, and a safety factor of 1.0. Hydrostatic pressures associated with seepage must also be considered in the design. Depending on the type of retention system selected, active or at-rest coefficients should be used in the earth retention system design.

Table 6: Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters

PARAMETER STRATUM F STRATUM 1 STRATUM 2

IMPORTED

FILL*

Unit Weight, pcf 115 135 125 135

Angle of Internal Friction, degrees 30 38 36 38

Cohesion, psf 0 0 0 0

Friction Factor (soils) 0.38 0.50 0.47 0.50 ka 0.33 0.24 0.26 0.24 ko 0.50 0.38 0.41 0.38 kp 3.00 4.20 3.85 4.20

*PennDOT 2A, or equivalent

If the contractor is responsible for the design of temporary or permanent retaining structures, then the contract documents should clearly require that a competent registered engineer perform the design and that satisfactory earth support is solely the contractor’s responsibility. Furthermore, the contract documents should require the contractor to notify the engineer immediately if differing or unforeseen subsurface conditions are encountered during construction.

5.7. Groundwater and Surface Water Management

The groundwater observations made in the borings indicate that free-standing water should not be encountered in shallow excavations anticipated for foundation construction. Depending on weather conditions during construction, wet conditions and/or seepage may occur. In the event that wet conditions and/or seepage are encountered due to perched water, sumps and pumps should be adequate to maintain stable conditions during foundation and earthwork construction.

Foundations should be concreted the same day the excavation is made. Excavations for utilities should be backfilled as rapidly as possible after excavation. The foundation excavations should not be used as a detention basin or sump. During construction surface runoff should be prevented from entering the excavations by creating soil berms or diversion swales along the perimeter if the excavation is expected to be open for a long period of time. Where ponding does occur, the water should be pumped immediately, and grades should then be established to prevent further ponding.

5.8. Construction Difficulties

Experience has shown that remnant construction and obstructions are often encountered during construction.

Boulders, obstructions, existing foundation, or other structural components disclosed should be completely removed to a minimum depth of 18 in. below the bottom of new ground floor slabs and 36 in. below the bottom of new foundations.

6. Recommendations for Further Geotechnical Services Our experience on numerous construction projects is that the interests of the project team are best served by retaining the Geotechnical Engineer to provide construction observations during earthwork and foundation construction operations. To determine if soils, other materials, and groundwater conditions encountered during construction are similar to those encountered in the borings, and that they have comparable engineering properties or influences on the design of the structure, we recommend that Pennoni should provide field observation services during excavation; preparation of foundation subgrades; and installation/construction of foundations. Pennoni’s Geotechnical Technology should review specifications for earthwork and foundation design/construction when they are prepared.

7. Limitations

This work has been done in accordance with our authorized scope of work and in accordance with generally accepted professional practice in the fields of geotechnical and foundation engineering. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the data revealed by this exploration. We are not responsible for any conclusions or opinions drawn from the data included herein, other than those specifically stated, nor are the recommendations presented in this report intended for direct use as construction specifications. This report is intended for use with regard to the specific project described herein; any changes in loads, structures, or locations should be brought to our attention so that we may determine how they may affect our conclusions. An attempt has been made to provide for normal contingencies, but the possibility remains that unexpected conditions may be encountered during construction. If this should occur, or if additional or contradictory data are revealed in the future, we should be notified so that modifications to this report can be made, if necessary. If we do not review relevant construction documents and witness the relevant construction operations, then we cannot be responsible for any problems that may result from misinterpretation or misunderstanding of this report or failure to comply with our recommendations. Our virtual executive summary should be used for informational purposes only and should not be used for construction related purposes.

APPENDICES

Appendix A:

Field Data

Pennoni Associates, Inc.

2041 Avenue C, Suite 100 Bethlehem, PA 18017

ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED OR

REPRESENTED TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BY OWNER OR OTHERS ON

EXTENSIONS OF THE PROJECT OR ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. ANY REUSE

WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION OR ADAPTATION BY PENNONI ASSOCIATES

FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE INTENDED WILL BE AT OWNERS SOLE RISK AND

WITHOUT LIABILITY OR LEGAL EXPOSURE TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES; AND

OWNER SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PENNONI ASSOCIATES FROM

ALL CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES, AND EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING

THEREFROM.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

DATE:

PROJECT No.

FIGURE No.

LyE

LBE

ES NTS 07/07/26 SKLOD26001

BORING AND DCPT LOCATION PLAN

SKYTOP LODGE STP IMPROVEMENTS - CANADENSIS, PA

LP-1

INDICATES APPROXIMATE BORING

LOCATION AND IDENTIFYING

NUMBER.

MJA

81 Highland Ave., Suite 230

B-1

DCPT-1

INDICATES APPROXIMATE DCPT

LOCATION AND IDENTIFYING

NUMBER.

NORTH

NOTES

WATER LEVELS, WHERE SHOWN, ARE

THOSE OBSERVED AT THE TIME NOTED

AND MAY NOT REFLECT DAILY OR

SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN THE GROUND

WATER LEVEL.

THE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS REVEALED

BY THIS STUDY REPRESENT CURRENT

CONDITIONS AT THE SPECIFIED TEST

LOCATIONS ONLY AND MAY NOT BE

INDICATIVE OF CONDITIONS AT OTHER

LOCATIONS.

B-3

B-4

B-5

DCPT-1

DCPT-2

A

F

B

1 in. of asphalt millings Black and brown and gray f/c angular GRAVEL, some to and f/m/c sand, little silt/clay

Gray to reddish brown f/c angular GRAVEL, some c/m/f sand, little silt/clay

Light gray to dark gray SANDSTONE, moderately to highly weathered, crushed to close slightly dipping fractures, hard to very hard

Borehole terminated at 21.0 feet.

3-6-6-5

9-4-5-5

6-4-5-5

3-2-2-2

4-2-3-6

10-14-27- 50/4

REC=60%

RQD=0%

(0)

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

R-1

Moderate auger chatter from 6-8 ft

Minor to moderate auger chatter from 13-16 ft

Auger refusal at 16 ft

1359.1

1346.2

1343.2

1338.2

0.1

13.0

16.0

21.0

DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Eichelbergers, Inc.

DATE STARTED 5/19/26 COMPLETED 5/19/26

WATER ENCOUNTERED:

CHECKED BY E. StanwoodLOGGED BY M. Anderson

DRILLER / HELPER R. Kitner

GROUND ELEVATION 1359.2'

DURING DRILLING 16.0' / Elev 1343.2'

AT END OF DRILLING -

AFTER DRILLING -

NOTES:

TEST BORING LOG

TEST BORING B-3

S T

R A

T A

D E

P T

H (f t)

DESCRIPTIONB

LO

W C

O U

N T

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y in

(R

Q D

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

REMARKS

Elev.

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

Depth

CLIENT Skytop Lodge

PROJECT NUMBER SKLOD26001

PROJECT NAME Skytop Lodge STP Improvements

PROJECT LOCATION Canadensis, PA

A

1 in. of asphalt millings Reddish brown and black f/c angular GRAVEL, some m/c/f sand, trace silt/clay

Reddish brown and gray f/m/c SAND, some silt/clay, some c/f angular gravel

Reddish brown to gray f/c angular GRAVEL, some c/m/f sand, little silt/clay

Borehole terminated at 25.0 feet.

11-10-6-6

3-3-4-2

2-1-2-4

4-1-2-2

2-16-11-6

16-17-22-24

17-30-24-29

15-20-50/5

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

Minor auger chatter from 7-13 ft

Auger refusal at 25 ft

1359.1

1346.2

1341.2

1334.2

0.1

13.0

18.0

25.0

DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Eichelbergers, Inc.

DATE STARTED 5/19/26 COMPLETED 5/19/26

WATER ENCOUNTERED:

CHECKED BY E. StanwoodLOGGED BY M. Anderson

DRILLER / HELPER R. Kitner

GROUND ELEVATION 1359.2'

DURING DRILLING 25.0' / Elev 1334.2'

AT END OF DRILLING -

AFTER DRILLING -

NOTES:

TEST BORING LOG

TEST BORING B-4

S T

R A

T A

D E

P T

H (f t)

DESCRIPTIONB

LO

W C

O U

N T

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y in

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

REMARKS

Elev.

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

Depth

CLIENT Skytop Lodge

PROJECT NUMBER SKLOD26001

U

B

Unsampled, boulders at surface elevation

Light gray to dark gray SANDSTONE, moderately to highly weathered, crushed to close horizontal to slightly dipping fractures, hard to very hard

Borehole terminated at 11.0 feet.

REC=98%

RQD=32%

(19)R-1

1384.0

1379.0

6.0

11.0

DRILLING METHOD Spin Casing

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Eichelbergers, Inc.

DATE STARTED 5/20/26 COMPLETED 5/20/26

WATER ENCOUNTERED:

CHECKED BY E. StanwoodLOGGED BY M. Anderson

DRILLER / HELPER R. Kitner

GROUND ELEVATION 1390.0'

DURING DRILLING

AT END OF DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

NOTES:

TEST BORING LOG

TEST BORING B-5

S T

R A

T A

D E

P T

H (f t)

DESCRIPTIONB

LO

W C

O U

N T

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y in

(R

Q D

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

REMARKS

Elev.

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

Depth

CLIENT Skytop Lodge

PROJECT NUMBER SKLOD26001

U

Unsampled, boulders at surface elevation

Gray f/c angular GRAVEL, and f/m/c sand, little silt/clay

Borehole terminated at 4.0 feet.

18-12-50/59S-1 Spin Casing refusal at 4 ft

1388.0

1386.0

2.0

4.0

DRILLING METHOD Spin Casing

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Eichelbergers, Inc.

DATE STARTED 5/20/26 COMPLETED 5/20/26

WATER ENCOUNTERED:

CHECKED BY E. StanwoodLOGGED BY M. Anderson

DRILLER / HELPER R. Kitner

GROUND ELEVATION 1390.0'

DURING DRILLING Not Encountered

AT END OF DRILLING -

AFTER DRILLING -

NOTES:

TEST BORING LOG

TEST BORING B-5A

S T

R A

T A

D E

P T

H (f t)

DESCRIPTIONB

LO

W C

O U

N T

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y in

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

REMARKS

Elev.

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

Depth

CLIENT Skytop Lodge

PROJECT NUMBER SKLOD26001

7/3/2026 Completed 7/3/2026

Depth Blows Resistance

(ft) 10 cm. Kg/cm2

0 150

0.3 13 57.7 16

0.7 44 195.4 55

1.0 33 146.5 41

1.3 35 155.4 44

1.6 49 217.6 62

2.0 50 222.0 63

Notes:

10 sq. cm

Cone Resistance Cohesive Soils Consistency

N'

Very Stiff Hard Hard Hard Hard Hard

DCPT-1

Client Project Number Date Started

Skytop Lodge STP Imrpovements Canadensis, PA Ground Surface

Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetration Log

Not Encountered Hammer Weight

Project Name Project Location Testing Elevation

Water Elevation Cone Area

SKLOD26001

Skytop Lodge

M. AndersonOperator/Helper 35 lbs.

Depth Blows Resistance

(ft) 10 cm. Kg/cm2

0 150

0.3 20 88.8 25

0.7 31 137.7 39

1.0 28 124.3 35

1.3 35 155.4 44

1.6 50 222.0 63

Notes: 2 ft north of DCPT-1

10 sq. cm

Cone Resistance Cohesive Soils Consistency

N'

Very Stiff Hard Hard Hard Hard

DCPT-1A

Client Project Number Date Started

Skytop Lodge STP Imrpovements Canadensis, PA Ground Surface

Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetration Log

Not Encountered Hammer Weight

Project Name Project Location Testing Elevation

Water Elevation Cone Area

SKLOD26001

Skytop Lodge

Depth Blows Resistance

(ft) 10 cm. Kg/cm2

0 150

0.7 28 124.3 35

1.0 25 111.0 31

1.3 14 62.2 17

1.6 16 71.0 20

2.0 19 84.4 24

2.3 26 115.5 33

2.6 50 222.0 63

Notes:

10 sq. cm

Cone Resistance Cohesive Soils Consistency

N'

Hard Hard

Very Stiff Very Stiff Very Stiff

Hard Hard

DCPT-2

Client Project Number Date Started

Skytop Lodge STP Imrpovements Canadensis, PA Ground Surface

Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetration Log

Not Encountered Hammer Weight

Project Name Project Location Testing Elevation

Water Elevation Cone Area

SKLOD26001

Skytop Lodge

1,330

1,335

1,340

1,345

1,350

1,355

1,360

1,365

1,370

1,375

1,380

1,385

1,390

1,395

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1,330

1,335

1,340

1,345

1,350

1,355

1,360

1,365

1,370

1,375

1,380

1,385

1,390

1,395

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

1343.2

N

1334.2

50+

50+

N

1386.0 50+50+

N

E le va tio n (f t)

Distance Along Baseline (ft)

SUBSURFACE DIAGRAM

Skytop Lodge STP Improvements Cross Section

CLIENT Skytop Lodge

PROJECT NUMBER SKLOD26001

PROJECT NAME Skytop Lodge STP Improvements

PROJECT LOCATION Canadensis, PA

N O

U S

C S

S

T R

A T

IG

R

A P

H Y

G

W

A S

IZ

E

P

E N

N O

N I_

S T

A N

D A

R D

_T E

M P

LA

T

E _2

8.

G D

T

/2

/2

0:

U

:\A C

C O

U N

T S

\S K

LO

D

\S K

LO

D

S K

Y T

O P

L O

D G

E S

T P

IM

P

R O

V E

M E

N T

S \A

N A

LY

T

IC

A

L\ F

IE

LD

D A

T A

\B O

R

IN

G S

\S K

LO

D

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

B-3 B-4

B-5A

Structure elevations were provided from HRG project drawings dated April, 2026.

APPROXIMATE GROUND

SURFACE ELEVATION

APPROXIMATE TOP OF

ROCK ELEVATION

BOTTOM ELEVATION OF

EQUALIZATION TANK

BOTTOM ELEVATION OF

POST-AERATION BASIN

BOTTOM OF ELEVATION

OF SECONDARY

CLARIFIERS

Appendix B:

Laboratory Data

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DATA

SHEAR STRENGTH

B-3 S-2 2-4 47 37 10.1

B-3 S-6 13-15 62 25 4.2

B-4 S-3 4-6 59 34 8.4

B-4 S-6 13-15 31 37 8.1

DRAWN BY: DATE: PROJECT: JOB No.:

CHECKED BY: DATE: LOCATION: TABLE No.:

B O

R

IN

G N

U M

B E

R

SA

M

P L

E N

U M

B E

R

D E

P T

H ft

SO

IL

G R

O U

P S

Y M

B O

L

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

PLASTICITY

G R

A V

E L

SA

N

D

SI

L

T

C L

A Y

COMPACTION

DATA

O rg an ic

C on te nt

V O

ID

R

A T

IO

e)

D E

G R

E E

O

SA

T U

R A

T

IO

N

M A

X

IM

U M

D R

Y

D E

N S

IT

Y pc f)

O P

T

IM

U M

M O

IS

T

U

C

N T

E N

T

ST

A

N D

A R

D /M

O D

IF

IE

D

P L

A

ST

IC

IT

Y I

N D

E X

I P

L

IQ

U

ID

IT

Y

I N

D E

X I

L

SP

E

C

IF

IC

G

R A

V

IT

Y

G

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T w

VOLUMETRIC

PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC.

BTG 6/10/2026 Skytop Lodge STP Improvements HROIX26001

JTR 6/10/2026 Canadensis, PA

L-1

U N

C O

N F

IN

C

M P

R E

SS

IV

ST

E N

G T

H ts f)

C O

H E

SI

O

N ts f)

A X

IA

L

S T

R A

IN

L

IQ

U

ID

L

IM

IT

w l

P L

A

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

w p

T h e s e r e s u lt s a re f o r th e e x c lu s iv e u s e o f th e c lie n t fo r w h o m t h e y w e re o b ta in e d T h e y a p p ly o n ly t o t h e s a m p le s t e s te d a n d a re n o t in d ic it iv e o f a p p a re n tl y i d e n ti c a l s a m p le s

Tested By: MEB Checked By: JTR

Particle Size Distribution Report P

E R

C E

N T

F

IN

E R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0 9 38 10 13 14 16

0 24 38 9 9 7 13

0 7 52 13 14 7 7

0 20 11 5 9 23 32 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

SOIL DATA

SOURCE

SAMPLE DEPTH

Material Description USCS NO. (ft.)

PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC.

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc

Skytop Lodge STP Improvements

HROIX-26001.01 S-1

B-3 S-2 2-4' F/C Gravel, And F/M/C Sand, Little Silt/Clay

B-3 S-6 13-15' F/C Gravel, Some C/M/F Sand, Little Silt/Clay

B-4 S-3 4-6' F/C Gravel, Some M/C/F Sand, Trace Silt/Clay

B-4 S-6 13-15' F/M/C Sand, Some Silt/Clay, Some C/F Gravel

Appendix C:

Standard Symbols

Ver. 2024 www.pennoni.com

Standard Symbols

B Width of footing c cohesion cv coefficient of consolidation

Cc compression index

C coefficient of secondary compression

C3 swelling index

Cu uniformity coefficient (D60/D10)

CBR California Bearing Ratio

D Pile Diameter

Df depth of foundation

Dp diameter of grain corresponding to percentage p on grain size curve

D10 effective grain size

E modulus of linear deformation

Es Young’s Modulus e void ratio

Fs factor of safety

G specific gravity h hydraulic head

H stratum thickness i hydraulic gradient

IL liquidity index

IP plasticity index k coefficient of permeability kh coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction kv coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction

L length of footing n porosity

P deviator stress

Pc estimated probable preconsolidation pressure

Po existing overburden pressure qa allowable soil bearing pressure

Q triaxial compression test unconsolidated and undrained

Qc triaxial compression test consolidated and undrained

S triaxial compression test consolidated and drained

Sr degree of saturation pore-water pressure

U degree of consolidation

Uc unconfined compression test wf moisture content at end of test wl liquid limit wn natural moisture content wp plastic limit unit weight d dry unit weight b submerged unit weight unit linear strain f unit linear strain at failure normal stress

1 major principal stress

3 minor principal stress shear stress angle of internal friction ka coefficient of active pressure kp coefficient of passive pressure friction angle tan friction factor