17-Ertle Wawa 8194 Geotechnical Report for Bartonsville PA.pdf

NEW BRITAIN CORPORATE CENTER

1600 MANOR DRIVE

SUITE 220

CHALFONT, PA 18914

215.712.2700

FAX 215.712.2701

www.whitestoneassoc.com

Other Office Locations:

WARREN, NJ

908.668.7777

SOUTHBOROUGH, MA

508.485.0755

ROCKY HILL, CT

860.726.7889

STERLING, VA

703.464.5858

EVERGREEN, CO

303.670.6905

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL

INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED WAWA FOOD MARKET #8194

3453 PENNSYLVANIA STATE ROUTE 611

BARTONSVILLE, MONROE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

ERTLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC

798 North 9th Street

Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC.

New Britain Corporate Center

1600 Manor Drive, Suite 220

Chalfont, Pennsylvania 18914

Whitestone Project No.: GP2219321.000

August 8, 2022

James M. Morgan

Senior Associate

Laurence W. Keller, P.E.

Vice President

SUITE 220

CHALFONT, PA 18914

215.712.2700

FAX 215.712.2701

www.whitestoneassoc.com

908.668.7777

SOUTHBOROUGH, MA

508.485.0755

ROCKY HILL, CT

860.726.7889

STERLING, VA

703.464.5858

EVERGREEN, CO

303.670.6905

August 8, 2022 via email

ERTLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC

798 North 9th Street

Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360

Attention: Mr. James Ertle

President

Regarding: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED WAWA FOOD MARKET #8194

3453 PENNSYLVANIA STATE ROUTE 611

BARTONSVILLE, MONROE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

WHITESTONE PROJECT NO.: GP2219321.000

Dear Mr. Ertle:

Whitestone Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit the attached Report of Geotechnical Investigation for the above-referenced project. The attached report presents the results of Whitestone’s soils exploration efforts and presents recommendations for design of the proposed structural foundations, floor slab, pavements, utilities, and related earthwork associated with the proposed development.

Whitestone’s Geotechnical Division appreciates the opportunity to be service to Ertle Development, LLC.

Please note that Whitestone has the capability to perform the additional geotechnical engineering services recommended herein. Please contact us with any questions regarding the enclosed report.

Sincerely, WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC.

James M. Morgan Laurence W. Keller, P.E.

Senior Project Manager Vice President, Geotechnical Services

TJ/JMM/mj M:\Job Folders\2022\2219321GP\Reports and Submittals\19321 ROGI.docx

Enclosures

Copy: Rickey Van Rickley, Stratum Contracting and Construction Management

James Smithson, Stratum Contracting and Construction Management

Jeffrey T. Bauer, P.G., Whitestone Associates, Inc.

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Proposed Wawa Food Market #8194

3453 Pennsylvania State Route 611

Bartonsville, Monroe County, Pennsylvania

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page i

19321 ROGI

SECTION 1.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION 2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 AUTHORIZATION

2.2 PURPOSE

2.3 SCOPE

2.3.1 Field Exploration

2.3.2 Laboratory Program

SECTION 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.3 SITE BEDROCK GEOLOGY

3.4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

SECTION 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

SECTION 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GENERAL

5.2 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK

5.3 STRUCTURAL FILL AND BACKFILL

5.4 GROUNDWATER CONTROL

5.5 FOUNDATIONS

5.6 FLOOR SLAB

5.7 PAVEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA

5.8 RETAINING WALL/LATERIAL EARTH PRESSURES

5.9 SEISMIC AND LIQUEFACTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.10 EXCAVATIONS

5.11 UST EMBEDMENT

5.12 SUPPLEMENTAL POST INVESTIGATION SERVICES

SECTION 6.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Proposed Wawa Development

3453 Pennsylvania State Route 611

Bartonsville, Monroe County, Pennsylvania

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Continued)

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page ii

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Boring Location Plan

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Records of Subsurface Exploration

APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results

APPENDIX C Supplemental Information (USCS, Terms and Symbols)

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 1

SECTION 1.0

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

An exploration and evaluation of the subsurface conditions has been conducted on the site of the proposed

Wawa Food Market and fueling station development located at 3453 Pennsylvania State Route 611 in

Bartonsville, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The site of the proposed construction is shown on the Boring

Location Plan included as Figure 1.

At the time of the investigation, the 4.37-acre subject site was developed with an approximately 1,900-square feet repair garage and associated improvements. Portions of the site were either lightly-wooded or gravel-covered. A topographic survey was not available at the time of Whitestone’s investigation, however, based on visual observations, the site was generally flat lying with grade changes on the order of approximately three feet to four feet across the property.

Based on the June 1, 2021 (last revised May 2, 2022) Governance Plan prepared by Bohler Engineering

PA, LLC, the proposed site redevelopment includes demolition of the improvements and construction of a

6,043-square feet single-story Wawa Food Market building, a canopy over six fuel dispenser stations, three underground storage tanks (USTs), and associated pavements, trash enclosure, identification signs, and utilities. Proposed site grading was not available at the time of this report. Whitestone anticipates that cuts and fills on the order of four feet will be required to attain design site grades. No earth retaining walls or below-grade building levels were identified on the Governance Plan.

The geotechnical investigation included conducting a reconnaissance of the project site, drilling soil seven borings and associated offsets, and collecting soil samples for laboratory analysis. The data from this exploration and analysis were analyzed by Whitestone in light of the project information provided by

Bohler.

A summary of Whitestone’s findings is presented in the following table and detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered are presented in Section 4.0.

Subsurface Profile Description

Bottom of

Stratum

(fbgs)

Surface Cover Material The subsurface tests disclosed 0.75- inch crushed gravel at the surface. 0.08

Existing Fill

Gravel with variable amounts of sand, clay, and silt with up to 15 percent coal, brick, wood, and concrete fragments. Boring B-2 encountered refusal in the existing fill at a depth of 4.1 fbgs.

2.0 to 8.0

Glacial Deposits

Poorly graded gravel with variable amounts of sand and silt (USCS:

GP & GP-GM) and silty sand (USCS: SM). Difficult drilling was encountered throughout this stratum on suspected cobbles and boulders.

5.2 to 18.1

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 2 fbgs: feet below ground surface.

Recommendations developed upon consideration of these findings are summarized in the table below and presented in greater detail in the indicated sections of the report.

Geotechnical

Consideration Recommendation Report Section

Demolition of

Existing Building

Demolition of the existing repair garage building should include complete removal of the slab, foundations, and associated utilities.

The resulting excavations should be backfilled in a controlled manner using approved structural backfill materials.

5.2

Foundation System

Conventional shallow foundations bearing within approved portions of the existing fill, underlying natural site soils, and/or controlled structural fill soils that are properly inspected, placed, and compacted in accordance with this report. Unsuitable existing fill containing deleterious debris, where present, at or below proposed foundation bearing elevations should be overexcavated.

5.5

Floor Slab &

Pavements

The proposed floor slab and pavements may be supported on approved existing fill, natural soils, and/or controlled structural fill materials subject to supplemental evaluation and subgrade preparation as described herein.

5.6 & 5.7

Difficult Excavation

Excavation difficulties should be expected throughout the site at variable depths due to the presence of suspected cobbles and boulders and/or obstructions within existing fill.

5.2

Groundwater

Control

Dewatering for construction is anticipated to consist of removing surface water runoff, infiltrating water, or trapped water at this site with sump pits and pumps.

5.4

Supplemental

Evaluation of Refusal

Materials

Prior to construction, supplemental investigation via test pits should be conducted to further evaluate the composition of encountered refusal materials.

5.12

Subsurface Profile Description

Bottom of

Stratum

(fbgs)

Refusal Materials The borings encountered refusal on suspected, but unconfirmed, cobbles or boulders at variable depths.

+5.2 to

+18.1

Groundwater

Static groundwater was not encountered within any of the test locations. Static and perched/trapped water conditions are expected to fluctuate seasonally and following periods of precipitation.

+18.1

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 3

SECTION 2.0

Introduction

2.1 AUTHORIZATION

Mr. James Ertle of Ertle Development, LLC (Ertle) issued authorization to Whitestone to perform a geotechnical investigation on this site relevant to the construction of the proposed Wawa Food Market and fueling station development located northwest of the intersection of Pennsylvania State Route 611 and

Bartonsville Avenue in Bartonsville, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The subsurface investigation was conducted in general accordance with Whitestone’s June 27, 2022 proposal to Ertle.

2.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this subsurface exploration and analysis was to:

ascertain the various soil profile components at test locations;

estimate the engineering characteristics of the proposed foundation bearing and subgrade materials;

provide geotechnical criteria for use by the design engineers in preparing the foundation, slab, and pavement design;

provide recommendations for required earthwork and subgrade preparation;

record groundwater and bedrock levels (if encountered) at the time of the investigation and discuss the potential impact on the proposed construction; and recommend additional investigation and/or analysis (if warranted).

2.3 SCOPE

The scope of the exploration and analysis included the subsurface exploration, field testing and sampling, laboratory analysis, and an engineering analysis and evaluation of the foundation materials. This Report of

Geotechnical Investigation is limited to addressing the site conditions related to the physical support of the proposed construction. Any references to suspicious odors, materials, or conditions are provided strictly for the client’s information.

2.3.1 Field Exploration

Field exploration of the project site was conducted by means of seven soil borings (identified as B-1 through

B-7) and three associated offset borings (identified as B-2A, B-2B, and B-4A). The soil borings were

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 4 advanced with a truck-mounted CME-45 drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers and utilizing split-spoon sampling techniques. The locations of the soil borings and test pits are shown on the Boring Location

Plan included as Figure 1. Records of Subsurface Exploration are provided in Appendix A. The test locations and termination depths are presented in the table below:

SOIL BORING & TERMINATION DEPTH TABLE

Proposed Construction Boring Location(s) Termination Depth (fbgs*)

Wawa Food Market Building B-1 & B-3 16.1 to 17.2

Fuel Canopy/Dispenser Islands B-2, B-2A, B-2B, B-4 & B-4A 4.1 to 12.2

UST Field B-5 18.1

Pavements B-6 & B-7 6.4 to 8.4

* fbgs: feet below ground surface

The test locations were based on the project information available at the time of the investigation provided by Bohler including the aformentioned Governance Plan prepared by Bohler. In addition, the investigation was conducted in general accordance with scope of work outlined in the August 14, 2018 Geotechnical

Report Standards prepared by Wawa, Inc. (Wawa).

The soil borings were conducted in the presence of a Whitestone engineer who conducted field tests, recorded visual classifications, and collected samples of the various strata encountered. The test areas were located in the field using normal taping procedures and estimated right angles. These locations are presumed to be accurate within a few feet.

Soil borings and Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were conducted in general accordance with ASTM

International (ASTM) designation D 1586. The SPT resistance value (N) can be used as an indicator of the consistency of fine-grained soils and the relative density of coarse-grained soils. The N-value for various soil types can be correlated with the engineering behavior of earthworks and foundations.

Groundwater level observations, where encountered, were recorded during and immediately after the completion of field operations prior to backfilling the borings. Groundwater elevations derived from sources other than seasonally observed groundwater monitor wells may not be representative of true groundwater levels.

2.3.2 Laboratory Program

In addition to the field investigation, a laboratory program was conducted to determine additional, pertinent engineering characteristics of representative samples of on-site soils. The laboratory program was conducted in general accordance with applicable ASTM standard test methods and included physical/textural testing of representative samples of various strata.

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 5

The results of the laboratory are presented in this section in a general manner and qualitatively interpreted.

The results are incorporated into the findings and recommendations discussed throughout this report.

Quantitative test results are provided in Appendix B.

Physical/Textural Analyses: Representative samples of selected strata encountered were subjected to a laboratory program that included Atterberg limits determinations (ASTM D-4318), moisture content determinations (ASTM D-2216), and washed gradation analyses (ASTM D-422) in order to perform supplementary engineering soil classifications in general accordance with ASTM D-2487. The soil strata tested were classified by the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and results of the laboratory testing are summarized in the following table. Quantitative test results are provided in Appendix B.

PHYSICAL/TEXTURAL ANALYSES SUMMARY

Boring

No.

Sample

Depth

(fbgs)

% Passing

No. 200

Sieve

Moisture

Content

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Index

USCS

Classification

B-3 S-3 4.0 - 6.0 14.1 4.0 19 4 GC-GM (Fill)

B-1 S-2 2.0 - 4.0 9.1 5.7 NP GP-GM

B-2 S-2 2.0 - 3.2 9.2 2.0 NP GP-GM (Fill)

B-4A S-1 8.0 - 8.7 21.6 7.0 21 3 GM

B-5 S-7 18.0 - 18.1 41.0 8.7 NP SM

fbgs: feet below ground surface

The engineering classifications are useful when considered in conjunction with the additional site data to estimate properties of the soil types encountered and to predict the soil’s behavior under construction and service loads.

Pavement and Slab Subgrade Analyses: A California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test and moisture-density relationship were conducted on a representative sample of the anticipated subgrade level in general accordance with ASTM D 1883 and ASTM 1557 (Modified Proctor), respectively. The CBR value is used in conjunction with climatic factors and design loads to design an appropriate pavement section. Detailed quantitative results are provided in Appendix B.

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 6

SECTION 3.0

Site Description

3.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The subject site comprising approximately 4.37-acres is located northwest of the intersection Pennsylvania

State Route 611 and Bartonsville Avenue in Bartonsville, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The site is bordered by residential properties, followed by Bartonsville Avenue to the north; Bartonsville Avenue, followed by residential and commercial buildings to the east; Pennsylvania State Route 611 followed by commercial development to the south; and Pennsylvania State Route 611, followed by commercial developments to the west. The site of the proposed development is shown on the Boring Location Plan included as Figure 1.

3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Surface Cover/Development: At the time of the investigation, the subject site was developed with an approximately 1,900-square feet single-story repair garage and associated improvements. Portions of the site were either lightly-wooded or gravel-covered.

Previous Site Development: Based on a review of available historical aerial imagery dating back to 1939, the subject property appeared to be developed with a barn-like structure within the southeastern corner of the site. The remaining portions of the site generally appear undeveloped. Sometime between 1963 and

1970, a large suspected aboveground storage tank was observed within the northwest portion of the site.

Sometime between 1992 and 1999, the aboveground storage tank was removed. No significant changes to the site were observed between 2005 and present day.

Topography: A topographic survey was not available at the time of Whitestone’s investigation, however, based on visual observations, the site appeared to be generally flat lying with grade changes on the order of approximately three feet to four feet across the property.

Utilities: The existing structure is serviced by water, sewer, electric, and telecommunications. The utility information contained in this report is presented for general discussion only and is not intended for construction purposes.

Site Drainage: Surface runoff generally consists of sheet flow across the existing ground surface and generally appears to flow towards right of way inlets located within Pennsylvania State Route 611. The termini of these inlets is unknown.

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 7

3.3 SITE BEDROCK GEOLOGY

According to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of

Topographic and Geologic Survey Geologic Map of Pennsylvania dated 1980, the subject the site is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province of Pennsylvania. Specifically, this area is underlain by the Trimmers Rock Formation that is a sequence of dominantly medium-dark-gray interbedded shales and siltstones. Some of the siltstones grade up into shale. Overburden materials include stratified drift associated with Late Wisconsinan glacial advance, along with till associated with the pre-Wisconsinan advance and existing fill associated with previous site development. The subsurface conditions encountered during the investigation generally reflect the mapped geology.

3.4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

Based on the aforementioned Governance Plan prepared by Bohler, the proposed site redevelopment includes demolition of the existing site improvements and construction of a 6,043-square feet single-story

Wawa Food Market building, a canopy over six fuel dispenser stations, three USTs, and associated pavements, trash enclosure, identification signs, and utilities. Proposed site grading also was not available at the time of this report. Whitestone anticipates that cuts and fills on the order of four feet will be required to attain design site grades. No earth retaining walls or below-grade building levels were identified on the

Governance Plan.

Whitestone anticipates that the proposed structure will consist of a combination of load-bearing masonry walls with steel joist and column framing and concrete slab-on-grade. Based on experience with similar

Wawa projects, maximum design loads are assumed to be less than the following:

column load - 60 kips;

wall load - 4.0 kips per linear foot;

floor slab load - 100 pounds per square foot; and canopy overturning moment - 50 foot-kips.

The scope of Whitestone’s investigation and the professional advice contained in this report were generated based on the project details and loading noted herein. Any revisions or additions to the design details enumerated in this report should be brought to the attention of Whitestone for additional evaluation as warranted.

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 8

SECTION 4.0

Subsurface Conditions

Details of the subsurface materials encountered are presented on the Records of Subsurface Exploration presented in Appendix A of this report. The subsurface soil conditions encountered in the test locations consisted of the following generalized strata in order of increasing depth.

4.1 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

Surface Cover Materials: The test locations were conducted within existing gravel-covered areas and disclosed approximately one inch of crushed gravel at the surface.

Existing Fill: Below the surface cover material, all test locations disclosed existing fill consisting of gravel with variable amounts of sand, silt, clay, and debris to depths ranging from approximately two fbgs to eight fbgs. The debris encountered consisted of up to 15 percent coal and concrete, brick, and wood fragments.

SPT N-values recorded within the existing fill ranged between 14 blows per foot (bpf) and refusal (generally defined as greater than 50 blows per six-inch advancement of the split-spoon sampler). Boring B-2 encountered refusal in the existing fill at a depth of 4.1 fbgs.

Glacial Deposits: Underlying the existing fill, the borings disclosed natural glacial deposits consisting of poorly graded gravel with varying amounts of sand and silt (USCS: GP & GP), and silty sand (USCS: SM).

SPT N-values recorded within the glacial soils ranged between 44 blows per foot (bpf) and refusal, indicating dense to very dense relative densities. The borings were terminated within this stratum due to auger and split-spoon refusal on suspected cobbles and boulders at approximate depths ranging from 5.2 fbgs to 18.1 fbgs.

Groundwater: Static groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth explored of approximately

18.1 fbgs. Static and perched/trapped water conditions are expected to fluctuate seasonally and following periods of precipitation.

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 9

SECTION 5.0

Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 GENERAL

Whitestone recommends supporting the proposed structures on conventional shallow foundations bearing within approved site soils and/or controlled structural fill soils that are properly inspected, placed, and compacted in accordance with Sections 5.2, 5.3, and 5.12 of this report.

Due to the presence of glacially deposited cobbles and boulders as well as apparent obstructions within the existing fill, excavation difficulties should be anticipated for the proposed UST field, canopy footings, and deeper utility excavations. Excavation difficulties should be anticipated at highly variable depths and will be affected by the nature of the boulders/obstructions, size of the excavation, depth, and equipment used.

Prior to construction, supplemental investigation via test pits should be conducted to further evaluate the composition of encountered refusal materials.

Whitestone anticipates that a majority of the natural site soils and existing fill will be suitable for reuse as structural fill/backfill provided that soil moisture contents are controlled within two percent of optimum moisture level and the existing fill is further evaluated during construction as recommended herein.

5.2 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK

Surface Cover Stripping and Demolition: Prior to stripping operations, all utilities should be identified and secured. Any surficial vegetation and pavements should be stripped at least 10 feet beyond the limits of the proposed development area. The existing site improvements including foundation walls, footings, slabs, and utilities should be removed entirely below proposed foundations and slab, including their zones of influence (as determined by the owner’s Geotechnical Engineer) and excavated to at least two feet below proposed construction subgrade levels elsewhere. Foundations and slabs may remain in place below these depths beneath proposed pavements and landscaped areas provided interference with future construction is avoided. However, any existing slab to remain should be thoroughly broken such that maximum particle size is 12 inches to allow vertical drainage of infiltrating water. The resulting excavations should be backfilled to in accordance with Sections 5.2 and 5.3. The demolition contractor should be required to conduct all earthwork activities in accordance with the recommendations in this report.

Excavation Difficulties: Cobbles/boulders and apparent obstructions encountered at the site will present excavation difficulties for foundations, utilities, and similar excavations at variable depths below the surface. Excavation difficulties will be affected by the size of the excavation depth and equipment used.

Heavy excavating equipment with ripping tools will probably be effective in removing cobbles/boulders and most obstructions during site grading. The speed and ease of excavation will depend on the type of

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 10 grading equipment, the skill of the equipment operators, and the size of the excavation. Planned excavation depths beyond refusal depths and in confined excavations, such as for foundation embedment or utility trenches, may require ripping tools, extreme service buckets, or pneumatic hammers.

Surface Preparation/Proofrolling: Prior to placing any fill, backfill or subbase materials to raise or restore grades to the desired building or pavement subgrade elevations, the exposed soils should be compacted to a firm and unyielding surface with a minimum of two passes in two perpendicular directions of a minimum 10-ton smooth drum roller operated in static mode. The surface should be proofrolled with a loaded tandem axle truck in the presence of the geotechnical engineer to help identify soft or loose pockets that may require removal and replacement or further investigation. Any fill or backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 5.3.

Weather Performance Criteria: Every effort must be made to maintain drainage of surface water runoff away from construction areas by grading and limiting the exposure of excavations and prepared subgrades to rainfall. Accordingly, excavation and fill placement procedures should be conducted during favorable weather conditions. Overexcavation of saturated soils and replacement with controlled structural fill per

Section 5.3 of this report may be required prior to resuming work on disturbed subgrade soils.

On-Site Soil Protection and Maintenance: Portions of the encountered site soils are, at least, moderately moisture sensitive and will degrade if exposed to inclement weather, freeze-thaw cycles, or repeated construction traffic.

Construction schedules and budgets should account for contingencies, such as importing materials to raise grades or restore overexcavations when construction must occur following wet weather or on an expedited basis. However, if properly protected and maintained during warm, dry weather as recommended herein, the site soils will provide adequate support for the proposed construction. The site contractors should employ necessary means and methods to protect the subgrade including, but not limited to the following:

sealing exposed subgrade soils on a daily basis with a vibratory smooth drum roller;

leaving existing pavements in place as long as feasible to protect subgrade soils from construction traffic;

regrading the site as needed to maintain positive drainage away from open earthwork construction areas and to prevent standing water;

removing wet surficial soils and ruts immediately; and limiting exposure to construction traffic and precipitation especially following inclement weather and subgrade thawing.

Pavement Subgrade Stabilization and Inspection: Pavement subgrade soils that are exposed to inclement weather and heavy construction traffic will degrade and require either extensive drying time or

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 11 overexcavation and replacement in order to provide a suitable subgrade for pavements. Overexcavation of unstable soils (existing fill or natural soils) within pavement areas typically should be limited to approximately 1.5 feet below planned subgrade unless directed otherwise by the owner’s geotechnical engineer, provided that a reinforcing geogrid approved by the owner’s geotechnical engineer is used.

Alternatively, unstable materials may be completely overexcavated and either aerated and recompacted or replaced with imported structural fill per Section 5.3. However, this option is likely least economical.

Geogrids typically are economical when proposed undercut depths exceed approximately 16 inches. The geogrid (Tensar TriAx TX130S, or similar) should be placed directly on the exposed subgrade and backfill should consist of a well-graded gravel and sand blend. The services of the geotechnical engineer should be retained to inspect soil conditions during construction and to provide specific recommendations for stabilizing subgrades. Additionally, a geotechnical engineer should be retained to verify the suitability of prepared foundation, floor slab and pavement subgrades for support of design loads.

5.3 STRUCTURAL FILL AND BACKFILL

Imported Fill Material: Any imported material placed as structural fill or backfill to raise elevations or restore design grades should consist of clean, relatively well-graded sand or gravel with a maximum particle size of two inches and five percent to 15 percent of material finer than a #200 sieve. Silts, clays, and silty or clayey sands and gravels with higher percentage of fines and with a liquid limit less than 40 and a plasticity index less than 20 may be considered subject to the owner’s approval, provided that the required moisture content and compaction controls are met during favorable weather conditions. The material should be free of clay lumps, organics, and deleterious material. Imported structural fill material should be approved by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to delivery to the site.

On-Site Materials: Whitestone anticipates that the majority of the existing fill and natural soils will be suitable for selective reuse as structural fill and/or backfill below proposed foundations, floor slab, and pavements provided moisture contents are controlled within two percent of the optimum moisture content and objectionable materials are segregated. The reuse of the site materials typically is possible only during extended periods of ideal weather conditions. Reuse of these soils is expected to require mixing with a granular material, extensive moisture conditioning, and/or drying to facilitate their reuse, workability, and compaction in fill areas.

Alternatively, imported fill materials may be used to attain the desired grades and expedite earthwork operations during wet weather periods. It should be the contractor’s responsibility to cover stockpiled soils, seal subgrades, and provide proper surface drainage during forecasted wet weather.

Cobbles and boulders, or similarly sized materials greater than three inches in diameter will need to be separated from on-site soils to be placed as structural fill or backfill. Cobbles between three inches to 12 inches may be crushed or individually placed in structural fill or backfill layers deeper than two feet below proposed foundation and pavement subgrade levels. Care must be taken to individually seat any large

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 12 particles and to compact soil around large particles with hand operated equipment to minimize risk of void formation. Boulders greater than 12 inches in diameter need to be crushed prior to replacement as structural fill materials. Materials greater than three inches in size should be placed a minimum of three feet from utilities.

Demolition Material: Demolition material, free of environmental restrictions, may be used as fill material provided the material is properly segregated and processed as recommended herein. Concrete and masonry materials should be crushed to a well graded blend with a maximum size of three inches in diameter.

Stripped asphalt and deleterious building materials such as wood, insulation, metal, shingles etc. should not be used as structural fill material. Milled or recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) may be re-used as granular base for proposed pavements provided that the RAP particle size meets Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation (PENNDOT) standard specifications for granular base and no more than 50 percent of the pavement granular base contains RAP.

Compaction and Placement Requirements: All fill and backfill should be placed in maximum nine-inch loose lifts and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density within two percent of the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). Whitestone recommends using a

10-ton vibratory drum roller to compact granular soils, and a 10-ton kneading (sheepsfoot) roller should be used for compacting cohesive soils.

Structural Fill Testing: A sample of the imported fill material or any on-site material proposed for reuse as structural fill or backfill should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for analysis and approval at least one week prior to its use. The placement of all fill and backfill should be monitored by a qualified engineering technician to ensure that the specified material and lift thicknesses are properly installed. A sufficient number of in-place density tests should be conducted to ensure that the specified compaction is achieved throughout the height of the fill or backfill.

5.4 GROUNDWATER CONTROL

Static groundwater was not encountered during Whitestone’s exploration. However, perched/trapped water may be encountered within the existing fill strata and above cohesive natural soils. As such, Whitestone anticipates that construction phase dewatering primarily will consist of removing surface water runoff, trapped, or perched water at this site. Minor dewatering of surface runoff, infiltrating water or trapped water typically may be controlled by providing a sufficient number of sump pumps at the base of the excavations.

5.5 FOUNDATIONS

Shallow Foundation Design Criteria: Whitestone recommends supporting the proposed structures on conventional shallow foundations bearing within approved portions of the existing fill, underlying natural site soils, and/or controlled structural fill soils that are properly inspected, placed, and compacted in

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 13 accordance with Sections 5.2, 5.3, and 5.12 of this report. Foundations bearing within these materials may be designed using a maximum allowable net bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot.

Reuse of the existing fill for foundation support will be contingent upon supplemental evaluation, as described in Section 5.12. All footing bottoms should be improved by in-trench compaction in the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer. Regardless of loading conditions, proposed foundations should be sized no less than minimum dimensions of 24 inches for continuous wall footings and 36 inches for isolated column footings.

Below-grade footings and footings subject to overturning should be designed such that the maximum toe pressure due to the combined effect of vertical loads and overturning moment does not exceed the recommended maximum allowable net bearing pressure. In addition, positive contact pressure should be maintained throughout the base of the footings such that no uplift or tension exists between the base of the footings and the supporting soil. Eccentrically-loaded footings should be evaluated by the Geotechnical

Engineer. Uplift loads should be resisted by the weight of the concrete. Side friction should be neglected when proportioning the footings such that lateral resistance should be provided by friction resistance at the base of the footings. A coefficient of friction against sliding of 0.35 is recommended for use in the design of the foundations bearing within the natural site soils or imported structural fill soils.

Foundation Inspection/Overexcavation Criteria: Whitestone recommends that the suitability of the bearing soils along and below the footing bottoms be verified by a Geotechnical Engineer prior to placing concrete for the footings. Where areas of unsuitable materials are encountered in footing excavations, such as existing fill, overexcavation and recompaction or replacement may be necessary to provide a suitable footing subgrade in accordance with Section 5.2. Any overexcavation to be restored with structural fill will need to extend at least one foot laterally beyond footing edges for each vertical foot of overexcavation.

Lateral overexcavation can be reduced if the grade is restored with lean concrete or approved flowable fill.

The bottom of overexcavation should be compacted with vibrating plates or plate tampers (“jumping jacks”) to compact locally disturbed materials.

Settlement: Whitestone estimates post construction settlements of new foundations will be on the order of less than one inch if the recommendations outlined in this report are properly implemented. Differential settlement between individual footings should be less than one-half inch.

Frost Coverage: Footings subject to frost action should be placed at least 48 inches below adjacent exterior grades or the depth required by local building codes to provide protection from frost penetration. Interior footings not subject to frost action may be placed at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the slab subgrade.

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 14

5.6 FLOOR SLAB

Whitestone anticipates that the majority of the existing fill, natural site soils, and/or controlled structural fill will be suitable for support of the proposed floor slab provided these materials are properly evaluated, recompacted, and proofrolled in accordance with Sections 5.2, 5.3, and 5.12 of this report during favorable weather conditions. Areas of overexcavation may be anticipated due to the variability that exists within the existing fill, evidenced by the debris encountered, and/or if the subgrades are exposed to precipitation. Any areas that become softened or disturbed as a result of wetting and/or repeated exposure to construction traffic should be removed and replaced with compacted structural backfill. The properly prepared on-site soils are expected to yield a minimum subgrade modulus (k) of 150 psi/in.

A minimum four-inch layer of three-quarter inch crushed stone (AASHTO No. 57 stone or similar) should be installed below the floor slab to provide a uniform subgrade and capillary break. A moisture vapor barrier should be placed beneath the floor slab where recommended by the flooring manufacturer.

5.7 PAVEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA

General: Whitestone anticipates that the majority of the site soils, and/or compacted structural fill and/or backfill placed to raise or restore design elevations are expected to be suitable for support of the proposed pavements provided these materials are properly evaluated, compacted, and proofrolled in accordance with

Sections 5.2, 5.3, and 5.12 of this report during favorable weather conditions. Localized areas of overexcavation may be anticipated due to the inherent variability that exists within the existing fill and/or if the subgrades are exposed to precipitation.

Design Criteria: A CBR value of 6.0 has been assigned to the properly prepared subgrade soils for pavement design purposes. This value was correlated with pertinent soil support values and assumed traffic loads to prepare flexible and rigid pavement designs per the AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement

Structures.

Design traffic loads were estimated based on Whitestone’s past experience with similar projects and correlated with 18-kip equivalent single axle loads (ESAL) for a 15-year life. Estimated maximum pavement loads of 25,000 ESALs and 60,000 ESALs were used for the standard duty and heavy duty pavement areas, respectively. These values assume the pavements primarily will accommodate both automobile and limited heavier truck traffic, with the heavier truck traffic designated to the main drive lanes. Actual loading experienced is anticipated to be less than this value.

Pavement Sections: The recommended flexible pavement sections are presented in the following table:

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 15

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS DESIGN

Layer Material Standard Duty

Thickness (Inches)

Heavy Duty Thickness

(Inches)

Asphalt Surface

PENNDOT SuperPave

9.5 mm PG 64-22 Surface

Course

1.5 2.0

Asphalt Base

PENNDOT SuperPave

19.0 mm PG 64-22 Base

Course

2.5 3.0

Granular Subbase PENNDOT 2A Stone 6.0 6.0

A rigid concrete pavement should be used to provide suitable support at areas of high traffic or severe turns

(such as loading areas, driveway aprons, and garbage dumpster aprons). The recommended rigid pavement is presented below in tabular format:

RIGID PAVEMENT SECTIONS DESIGN

Layer Material Standard Duty

Thickness (Inches)

Heavy Duty Thickness

(Inches)

Surface 4,000 psi Air-Entrained

Concrete

6.0 6.0

Base PENNDOT 2A Stone 6.0 8.0

Additional Design Considerations: The pavement section thickness designs presented in this report are based on the design parameters detailed herein and are contingent on proper construction, inspection, and maintenance. Additional pavement thickness may be required by local code. The designs are contingent on achieving the minimum soil support value in the field. To accomplish this requirement, all subgrade soil and supporting fill or backfill must be properly evaluated, placed, and prepared as detailed in Sections

5.2, 5.3, and 5.12 of this report. Proper drainage must be provided for the pavement structure including appropriate grading and surface water control, as well as measures to drain water from the subgrade.

The performance of the pavement also will depend on the quality of materials and workmanship.

Whitestone recommends that PENNDOT standards for materials, workmanship, and maintenance be applied to this site. Project specifications should include verifying that the installed asphaltic concrete material composition is within tolerance for the specified materials and that the percentage of air voids of the installed pavement is within specified ranges for the respective materials. All rigid concrete pavements should be suitably air-entrained, jointed, and reinforced.

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 16

5.8 RETAINING WALL/LATERIAL EARTH PRESSURES

No retaining walls were identified on the aforementioned Governance Plan. However, Whitestone anticipates that a temporary excavation support will be required during installation of the proposed USTs.

Whitestone should be notified if any other retaining structures or design considerations requiring lateral earth pressure estimations are proposed.

Retaining structures free to rotate generally can be designed to resist active earth pressures. Retaining structures restrained from movement and with corners need to be designed to resist at-rest earth pressures.

The following soil parameters apply to the site soils encountered in a well-drained, level backfill condition and may be used for design of temporary retaining structures:

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE PARAMETERS

Parameters Site Soils & Imported Granular Fill

Moist Density (γmoist) 140 pcf

Internal Friction Angle (φ) 30°

Active Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ka) 0.33

Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient (Kp) 3.00

At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ko) 0.50

Lateral earth pressure will depend on the slope angle of construction phase grades and subgrades. The effect of other surcharges also will need to be included in earth pressure calculations, possibly including the loads imposed by adjacent traffic. Whitestone would be pleased to assist with the calculation of lateral earth pressures based on the soil parameters presented herein, if necessary.

5.9 SEISMIC AND LIQUEFACTION CONSIDERATIONS

The subsurface conditions are most consistent with a Site Class C as defined by the International Building

Code (IBC) - 2018. Based on the seismic zone and soil profile, liquefaction considerations are not expected to have a substantial impact on design. The following spectral accelerations are recommended:

SEISMIC SITE PARAMETERS

Ss S1 Fa Fv

0.167g 0.048g 1.300 1.500

5.10 EXCAVATIONS

Temporary Excavations: The site materials encountered during this investigation typically are, at a minimum, consistent with Type C Soil Conditions as defined by 29 CFR Part 1926 (OSHA) that require a

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 17 maximum unbraced excavation angle of 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical). Actual conditions encountered during construction should be evaluated by a competent person (as defined by OSHA) to ensure that safe excavation methods and/or shoring and bracing requirements are implemented. Particular attention to the stability of the UST excavation should be considered.

Due to the anticipated depth for the proposed UST excavation, the use of a temporary retaining structure most likely will be necessary. Such structures should be properly designed by the contractor’s licensed engineer and should consider potential effects to adjacent roadways, the possibility of encountered obstructions in the existing site soils, and economy.

The specific design of temporary retaining structures is beyond the scope of this report. Whitestone would be pleased to provide additional consultation regarding the design of temporary retaining structures, if requested.

5.11 UST EMBEDMENT

All USTs should be tied down and/or embedded below a properly designed concrete mat to provide protection from frost penetration and to counteract potential buoyancy. Optional tie down methods include the following:

► Deadmen: Concrete deadmen may be designed such that the weight of concrete compensates buoyancy forces.

► Mat Foundation: A mat foundation may be designed such that the weight of the mat compensates buoyancy forces.

5.12 SUPPLEMENTAL POST INVESTIGATION SERVICES

Supplemental Evaluation of Existing Fill & Refusal Materials: The conditions disclosed by the investigation indicated that a majority of the existing fill encountered will be suitable for selective reuse as structural backfill/fill if evaluated and prepared as described herein. However, there is a potential risk of variability in existing fill, which may not be disclosed by the test locations conducted throughout the site.

Additionally, the borings encountered refusal on unconfirmed materials at approximate depths ranging from

5.2 fbgs to 18.1 fbgs. As such, Whitestone recommends confirming further the condition of the existing fill and refusal materials by conducting test pits prior to construction and subgrade proofroll inspections prior to the site grading activities under supervision of the owner’s Geotechnical Engineer to enable an assessment for the depths, areal extent, presence of voids, uncontrolled conditions, or deleterious materials.

If unsuitable conditions are encountered, alternative recommendations, such as additional overexcavation and replacement, or subgrade stabilization methods may be required.

Demolition and Construction Inspection and Monitoring: The owner’s Geotechnical Engineer should perform inspection, testing, and consultation during construction as described in previous sections of this

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 18 report. Monitoring and testing should also be conducted to verify that the existing structure and associated utilities are properly demolished, any encountered underground structures, such as the existing building foundations, are properly backfilled, the existing surface cover materials are properly removed, and suitable materials, used for controlled fill, are properly placed and compacted over suitable subgrade soils. Any overexcavation of existing fill within the proposed building footprint should be witnessed and documented by the owner’s Geotechnical Engineer. The proper placement of structural backfill within the building should also be documented by the owner’s Geotechnical Engineer.

WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 19

SECTION 6.0

General Comments

Supplemental recommendations may be required upon finalization of construction plans or if significant changes are made in the characteristics or location of the proposed structure. Soil bearing conditions should be checked at the appropriate time for consistency with those conditions encountered during Whitestone’s geotechnical investigation.

The recommendations presented herein should be utilized by a qualified engineer in preparing the project plans and specifications. The engineer should consider these recommendations as minimum physical standards which may be superseded by local and regional building codes and structural considerations.

These recommendations are prepared for the sole use of Ertle Development, LLC for the specific project detailed and should not be used by any third party. These recommendations are relevant to the design phase and should not be substituted for construction specifications.

The possibility exists that conditions between borings may differ from those at specific boring locations, and conditions may not be as anticipated by the designers or contractors. In addition, the construction process may alter soil and rock conditions. Therefore, experienced geotechnical personnel should observe and document the construction procedures used and the conditions encountered.

Whitestone assumes that a qualified contractor will be employed to perform the construction work, and that the contractor will be required to exercise care to ensure all excavations are conducted in accordance with applicable regulations and good practice. Particular attention should be paid to avoiding damaging or undermining adjacent properties and maintaining slope stability.

Whitestone recommends that the services of the Geotechnical Engineer be engaged to test and evaluate the soils in the footing excavations prior to concreting in order to determine that the soils will support the bearing capacities. Monitoring and testing also should be conducted to verify that suitable materials are used for controlled fills and that they are properly placed and compacted over suitable subgrade soils.

The exploration and analysis of the foundation conditions reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the foundation design. The recommendations submitted for the proposed construction are based on the available soil information and the design details furnished by Bohler

Engineering PA, LLC. Deviations from the noted subsurface conditions encountered during construction should be brought to…