2-2026.02.25 School House Rd Project Manual.pdf

Chapman Township 00 01 10 - 1 Contract 2026-01

SCHOOL HOUSE ROAD (T-314) CULVERT REPLACEMENT

Chapman Township, Clinton County

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. BIDDING REQUIREMENTS, CONTRACT FORMS,

AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT

DIVISION 00 – PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS SECTION

ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS.............................................................................................. 001113: 1 INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS ............................................................................................ 002113: 1-8 BID FORM ............................................................................................................................. 004113: 1-4

BID SECURITY

NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT

CERTIFICATION OF BIDDER REGARDING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION FORM

FORM OF AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................... 005213: 1-5 PERFORMANCE BOND ....................................................................................................... 006113.13: 1-2 PAYMENT BOND ................................................................................................................. 006113.16: 1-2 GENERAL CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 007200: 1-43 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT .................................................................................................. 007200: 1-26 WAGE DETERMINATION SCHEDULE ................................................................................ 007346: 1-7

B. SPECIFICATIONS

DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

011000 – SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 011000: 1-3 012900 – PAYMENT PROCEDURES ................................................................................ 012900: 1-4 013100 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION ........................................... 013100: 1-10 013300 – SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES ............................................................................. 013300: 1-7 015000 – TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS ................................................... 015000: 1-2 016000 – PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 016000: 1-7 017100 – EXAMINATION AND PREPERATION ................................................................ 017100: 1-2 017700 – CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES .............................................................................. 017700: 1-7 017839 – PROJECT RECORD DOCUMENTS .................................................................. 017839: 1-4

DIVISION 31 – EARTHWORK

31 11 00 – SITE CLEARING AND GRUBBING .................................................................. 31 11 00: 1-5 31 20 00 – EARTH MOVING .............................................................................................. 31 20 00: 1-13 31 23 19 – DEWATERING .................................................................................................. 31 23 19: 1-3 31 25 13 – EROSION CONTROLS .................................................................................... 31 25 13: 1-24 Exhibit A - Erosion Permit and General Permit 31 40 00 – SHORING AND UNDERPINNING .................................................................... 31 40 00: 1-2

DIVISION 32 – EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 12 00 – FLEXIBLE PAVING ........................................................................................... 32 12 00: 1-5

DIVISION 33 – UTILITIES

33 42 00 – STORMWATER CULVERTS ............................................................................ 33 42 00: 1-4

ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS

Chapman Township Board of Supervisors will receive sealed bids online for Contract 2026-01 for the construction of the School House Road (T-314) Culvert Replacement project until Friday, March 27, 2026 at 3:00pm at which time they shall be opened online with results publicly posted via PennBid shortly thereafter. All documents and solicitation details are available at no cost on PennBid – https://pennbid.bonfirehub.com. Bids will be reviewed at the regular meeting of the Chapman Township Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, April 7, 2026 at 5:00pm.

The project includes but is not limited to clearing and grubbing, erosion controls, earthwork, installation of aluminum box culvert, and pavement and vegetative restoration.

Bidder shall submit all questions about the meaning or intent of the Bidding Documents via the “Messages/Vendor Discussions” feature in PennBid no later than seven (7) days prior to the date for receipt of bids. Each bid shall be accompanied by a Certified Check or Bid Bond in an amount of not less than ten percent (10%) of the bid total.

The bidders’ attention is called to the fact that no less than the minimum prevailing wages must be paid on this project and bids shall be prepared in accordance with the bid documents. All bids shall be irrevocable for 60 days after the bid opening date, with the right to extend the time to 120 days if additional time is required. Chapman Township reserves the right to waive any defects, errors, omissions, mistakes, informalities, to accept any bid or combination of bids that are deemed to be in the best interest of the Township, and to reject any or all bids.

RETURN FORM TO:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Public Works Employment Verification Form

Public Works Employment Verification Office Department of General Services

Bureau of Procurement 6th floor, Forum Place

555 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1914

717-346-8115 ra-gsgseverify.pa.gov

PLEASE PRINT

Business or Organization Name (Employer) _________________________________________________

Address______________________________________________________________________________

City__________________________________ State_____________________ Zip Code______________

Check One:

Contractor

Subcontractor

Contracting Public Body________________________________________________________________

Contract/Project No.___________________________________________________________________

Project Description____________________________________________________________________

Project Location_______________________________________________________________________

Date enrolled in E-Verify________________________________________________________________

As a contractor/subcontractor for the above referenced public works contract, I hereby affirm that as of the above date, our company is in compliance with the Public Works Employment Verification Act (‘the Act’) through utilization of the federal E-Verify Program (EVP) operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security. To the best of my/our knowledge, all employees hired post January 1, 2013 are authorized to work in the United States.

It is also agreed to that all public works contractors/subcontractors will utilize the federal EVP to verify the employment eligibility of each new hire within five (5) business days of the employee start date throughout the duration of the public works contract. Documentation confirming the use of the federal EVP upon each new hire shall be maintained in the event of an investigation or audit.

I, _______________________________, authorized representative of the company above, attest that the information contained in this verification form is true and correct and understand that the submission of false or misleading information in connection with the above verification shall be subject to sanctions provided by law.

Authorized Representative Signature Date of Signature

- 1 -

AGREEMENT

FOR

SCHOOL HOUSE ROAD (T-314) CULVERT REPLACEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of the _XX_ day of _April in the year_2026 ; BY and BETWEEN

Chapman Township 196 Main Street, PO Box 485

North Bend, PA 17760 hereinafter called Owner, and

Hereinafter called Contractor, OWNER and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1: WORK

1.1 Contractor shall complete all Work as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents. The Work is generally described as follows:

School House Road (T-314) Culvert Replacement

1.2 The Project for which the work under the Contract Document may be the whole or only a part is generally described as follows:

Work shall include but is not limited to: clearing and grubbing, erosion controls, earthwork, installation of aluminum box culvert, and pavement and vegetative restoration.

ARTICLE 2: Engineer

2.1 The Project has been designed by PennCore Consulting, LLC of South Williamsport, Pennsylvania, who is hereinafter called Engineer and who will assume partial duties and responsibilities as assigned by the Owner and will have the rights and authority assigned to the Engineer in the Documents in connection with completion of the Work in accordance with the Documents.

ARTICLE 3: CONTRACT TIME

3.1 All Work will be final completed, furnished and in place, on or before June 26, 2026; upon issuance of

Notice to Proceed on or before May 1, 2026; and delivery of culvert and head/endwalls by Owner on or before May 29, 2026. Additionally, all work shall be completed and ready for final payment in accordance with Paragraph 7.11 of the General Conditions on June 26, 2026.

The following Agreement is the proposed form which the Owner intends to execute with the

Successful Bidder. The portions of the document have been intentionally left blank and will be completed by Owner prior to execution of the Agreement by Owner and Contractor. These portions include date, Owner’s Name and Address, Contractor’s Name and Address, Contract

Number, Name, and Description, Contract Price, and Article 7 - Documents.

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES

Geotechnical Engineering Study School House Road GP-11

School House Road, Chapman Township, Clinton County, Pennsylvania

HCEA Project No. STC250123A

September 26, 2025

Prepared for:

PennCore Consulting 999 Main Street

South Williamsport, PA 17702

Prepared by:

Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates, Inc.

2929 Stewart Drive, Suite 302 State College, Pennsylvania 16801

Corporate Headquarters - Annapolis Junction, MD

Maryland Washington, DC Delaware Pennsylvania Virginia Caribbean

2929 Stewart Drive, Suite 302

State College, Pennsylvania 16803

Phone (814) 231-0552 www.hcea.com

September 26, 2025

Mr. Donald Stevenson Chief Executive Officer PennCore Consulting 999 Main Street South Williamsport, PA 17702

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Study

Dear Mr. Stevenson, Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates, Inc. (HCEA) is pleased to submit this report conveying results of the subsurface exploration and subsequent geotechnical evaluation for the proposed project referenced above.

The material samples collected during the site exploration will be stored at our office for a period of 90 days from the date of this letter. If you require the samples to be stored for a longer period of time or to be delivered to you or another party, please make a request in writing prior to the end of the 90-day period. Otherwise, the samples will be discarded at the end of the 90-day storage period.

HCEA appreciates having had the opportunity to provide the geotechnical consultation for this project, and we will remain available for further consultation during the various design stages. Please contact our office if questions arise concerning the contents of this report, or additional consultation, design, inspection, or testing services are required.

Sincerely, HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Garren Kunes, G.I.T.

Staff Geologist gkunes@hcea.com

Stephen M. Simonette, P.E.

Principal Engineer ssimonette@hcea.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

3.1 Test Borings

3.2 Laboratory Testing

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Site Geology

4.2 Mining Information Review

4.3 Surficial Cover

4.4 FILL

4.5 Natural Materials (Alluvium)

4.6 Groundwater

5.0 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Discussion

5.2 General Site Preparation

5.3 Fill Selection, Placement, and Compaction

5.4 Foundations

5.5 Seismic Site Class

5.6 Earth Pressure Recommendations

5.7 Groundwater and Drainage

6.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES

7.0 REMARKS

APPENDIX

Figure 1 - Project Location Map Figure 2 – Aerial Location Map Figure 3 – Boring Location Plan PADEP Coal Status Report Records of Soil Exploration Laboratory Test Results Field Classification Sheet

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Page 1

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this study was to characterize the general subsurface conditions at the boring locations and to evaluate those conditions with respect to the concept and design for the planned construction at the site.

The evaluations and recommendations presented in this report were developed from a review of project characteristics and an interpretation of the general subsurface conditions at the site based on the results of the site exploration. The stratification lines indicated on the Records of Subsurface Exploration (boring logs) represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. However, the in-situ transitions may actually be gradual. Such variations can best be evaluated during construction and any minor design changes can be made at that time, if necessary.

An evaluation of the site with respect to potential construction problems and recommendations dealing with the earthwork and inspection during construction are also included. The inspection is considered necessary to verify the subsurface conditions and to verify that the soils-related construction phases are performed properly. The Appendix of this report contains a summary of the field and laboratory work performed for this study.

2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

Based on the provided PennCore Consulting “School House Road GP-11, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan/GP-11 Drawings” drawing set dated August 2025 and correspondence with PennCore Consulting personnel, we understand that this project consists of the full replacement of the existing structure with an arch culvert structure located in Chapman Township, Clinton County, Pennsylvania. The general site location is indicated in Figures 1 and 2 in the Appendix of this report.

The existing structure consists of a concrete box culvert spanning approximately 11 feet with a length of approximately 24 feet. A new aluminum arch culvert with aluminum endwalls is planned. The overall length of the new culvert is expected to be approximately 41 feet in length and approximately 12 feet in width with a height of approximately 6 feet . The new culvert invert elevations will be approximately EL 653 feet. The bottom of the culvert will bear approximately 6 feet below existing grade and 18 inches below the existing streambed. The concrete cutoff walls located at either side of the culvert will extend approximately ± 2 feet below the invert levels. Based on the new culvert dimensions and invert elevations, we have estimated a total applied load along the length of the culvert to be 17 kips per lineal foot. Our recommendations are based on maximum tolerable total and differential settlements of 1-inch and ½-inch, respectively.

Should any of the project details differ from what has been described above, then this office should be contacted in order to revise this report and potentially reevaluate our conclusions and recommendations.

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Page 2

3.1 Test Borings

A subsurface exploration program was performed consisting of a total of two borings designated as B-1 and B-2. The approximate boring locations are indicated on Figure 3 – Boring Location Plan included in the Appendix. Boring locations were selected and field located by personnel other than HCEA.

Drilling was completed by HCEA on September 15, 2025 using an Acker Rebel drill rig. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 20 to 30 feet below existing surface grades with hollow-stem augers. Augur refusal was not encountered indicating the apparent top of bedrock was likely not encountered.

Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and disturbed, split-spoon sampling was performed continuously within the uppermost approximate 10 feet. Samples were obtained by driving a 1-3/8 inch I.D. (2-inch O.D.) split-spoon sampler in general accordance with ASTM D1586 specifications. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings and then was driven an additional foot and a half, with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the middle 12 inches of the 2-foot spoon is designated as the "Penetration Resistance" or "N" value. The penetration resistance is an index to the soil strength and compression characteristics.

Upon completion of drilling and sampling, the boreholes were backfilled with the auger spoils mixed with bentonite. Upon backfilling of the boreholes, no additional compaction effort or site restoration was performed. Additional settlement and/or softening of the soil replaced in the boreholes may occur, resulting in a depression or hole in the ground surface. Consequently, future maintenance or restoration of the site may be required by others.

All recovered samples were visually classified by HCEA. Portions of each SPT sample were placed in air-tight glass jars. After completion of the drilling, the samples were transported to HCEA’s laboratory for further examination and laboratory testing. The samples were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The USCS classifications appear on the Test Boring Logs.

The boring logs presented in the Appendix show subsurface sample depths and recoveries, SPT results, and water level measurement data. The logs also show the approximate thickness, location, and visual classification of each material encountered. The stratigraphic lines separating each material type represent the approximate location of the boundary between them. The transition between materials may be far more or less gradual than indicated on the logs.

3.2 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing was performed on representative SPT samples, which consisted of moisture content tests and sieve analyses, in general accordance with ASTM D-2487 to obtain the USCS classification of the soils tested. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in the Appendix of this report and the USCS

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Page 3 classifications presented on the boring logs were reviewed based on the laboratory testing results.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Details of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on the boring logs. Strata divisions shown on the boring logs have been estimated based on visual examinations of the recovered boring samples and the collection intervals. In the field, strata changes could occur gradually and/or at different levels than indicated on the boring logs.

Ground elevations discussed in this report and indicated on the boring logs are based on information contained on the PennCore Consulting “Plan View” drawing dated July 2025.

Groundwater conditions indicated on the boring logs are those observed during the subsurface exploration. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be expected and are typically influenced by changes in seasons, grading, runoff, infiltration rates, and may be influenced by other factors.

General area geology, USDA soil survey information, mining resource review, and the generalized subsurface conditions and pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils encountered in our borings are discussed below.

4.1 Site Geology

Information published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) indicates the site is underlain by bedrock geology belonging to the Catskill Formation. This formation is Devonian in age and consists predominantly of a succession of sandstone, siltstone, shale, and some conglomerate and mudstone.

Information contained on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) website https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ indicates the soils at this site consist of alluvium derived from sedimentary rock.

4.2 Mining Information Review

Resources reviewed relative to mining in the general area of the subject property included published USGS historical topographic maps, published historical aerial imagery, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection/Penn State University Mine Maps website, and the September 19, 2025 Coal Status Report provided by the PADEP District Mining Operations office.

Historical USGS Topographic mapping does not indicate past surface mining at the subject site.

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Page 4

The Coal Status Report, included in the Appendix of this report, indicates there is no record of mining at the site, and the Bituminous Coal Fields are non-existent at the site.

Please be aware that mining maps can be difficult to interpret, inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. Therefore, a more thorough assessment of the presence of mine voids beneath this site can be provided with various geophysical methods and deeper borings. HCEA should be contacted if these additional services are desired for this site.

The owner may contact the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in California, Pennsylvania (724) 769-1100 to obtain additional information concerning mining and mine subsidence insurance.

4.3 Surficial Cover

Approximately 5 to 6 inches of Bituminous Concrete was encountered at our borings. Please be aware that surficial material types and thicknesses may vary between widely spaced boring positions.

4.4 FILL

Below the surficial Bituminous Concrete, materials classified as FILL were encountered. The FILL was encountered to depths of approximately 7.7 feet and

7.5 feet below the existing surface grade at Borings B-1 and B-2, respectively. The FILL included poorly-graded GRAVEL with sand (gp), silty SAND with gravel (SM), and silty sandy GRAVEL (gp-gm).

The SPT N-values in the FILL ranged from approximately 11 to 34 blows per foot (bpf). It should be noted the results of the Standard Penetration Tests in man-placed fill may not be reliable indicators of the actual consistency or relative density. The miscellaneous character of the fill could cause erroneous values and, therefore, may not be indicative of the true engineering properties of the fill. The engineering characteristics of this material, such as strength and compressibility, are likely to be extremely variable.

4.5 Natural Materials (Alluvium)

The Fill at Borings B-1 and B-2 was underlain by natural, Alluvial soils to the termination depths of 30 feet and 20 feet, respectively. The Alluvial materials included coarse-grained soils consisting of poorly-graded GRAVEL with sand (gp) and fine-grained soils consisting of sandy SILT with gravel (ml). The SPT N-values in the coarse-grained soils ranged from approximately 47 bpf to 50 blows for approximately 1 inch of sampler penetration, indicating dense to very dense relative density conditions. The SPT N-values in the fine-grained soils ranged from approximately 4 to 6 bpf, indicating soft to medium stiff relative density conditions.

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Page 5

Laboratory tested samples of the natural soils exhibited moisture contents ranging from approximately 8 to 15 percent and fines contents ranging from approximately 14 to 51 percent. The fines portions of the tested samples from the borings exhibited non-plastic (NP) conditions.

4.6 Groundwater

Infiltrating groundwater was encountered in our borings at approximately 6 feet below existing grade within the depths explored during drilling and sampling of the overburden soil. For safety reasons, all boreholes were backfilled upon completion.

A more accurate determination of the hydrostatic water table would require the installation of perforated pipes or piezometers which could be monitored over an extended period. The actual level of the hydrostatic water table and the amount and level of perched water should be anticipated to fluctuate throughout the year, depending on variations in precipitation, surface run-off, infiltration, site topography, and drainage. The Contractor should determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of construction to evaluate groundwater impact on the proposed construction procedures.

5.0 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Discussion

As previously discussed, the new abutments will bear approximately 6 feet below the existing grade. Based on our borings, FILL is anticipated to be encountered above the bearing elevation and at the nominal bearing levels for conventional footing foundations. The existing FILL may be left in place provided the exposed materials do not contain deleterious materials, the subgrades do not exhibit yielding and/or rutting under proofroll equipment loads, and the risk of excessive settlement of unremoved FILL is accepted.

Soft to medium stiff silts were encountered within our borings depths immediately below the proposed bearing elevation of EL 653 feet. In order to further assess the extent and properties of these materials, we recommend that test pits be advanced following demolition and removal of the existing structure. If the silt is encountered within the proposed foundation footprint, implementation of a subgrade improvement program, such as removal and replacement with engineered structural fill, may be warranted to achieve the required bearing capacity and mitigate potential settlement concerns.

The following additional recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics, the subsurface conditions encountered in our borings, and the discussion presented above. If there are any changes to the project characteristics or if different subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, HCEA should be consulted so that the recommendations of this report can be reviewed and revised accordingly.

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Page 6

5.2 General Site Preparation

To attain the anticipated finished soil subgrades for abutment foundations, excavation to depths of approximately 6 feet below the existing pavement surface grades will be required. Therefore, all existing surficial pavements, existing structures, and overburden soils will be removed. Existing structure removal should include all walls, foundations, slabs, and utilities to be abandoned/relocated.

If lay-back excavations are planned, we recommend the maximum excavation side-slopes be graded at no steeper than 2H:1V. While no below-grade obstructions were encountered in our borings, the borings were relatively widely spaced, and below-grade obstructions from previously development may exist. If a support of excavation system is implemented in lieu of a lay-back excavation program, the selected system will need to consider the potential for groundwater seepage from the overburden soils and at the soil-rock interface levels.

5.3 Fill Selection, Placement, and Compaction

Materials to be used as fill or backfill should be observed, tested, and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials suitable for various construction purposes can be identified by an experienced Soils Technician during grading operations. Crushed aggregate meeting the requirements of PennDOT 2A aggregate or approved equivalent could also be utilized as structural fill at locations recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer, and should be considered for localized, relatively deep fills such as foundation undercuts or trenches where utilities are removed.

On-site and imported soils to be used as fill and backfill should exhibit Unified Soil Classifications of CL, ML, CL-ML, SP, SC, SM, GP, GC, or GM, have a Liquid Limit of less than 45 and a Plasticity Index of less than 20, a maximum particle size of 3 inches in their largest dimension, and be free of organic and other deleterious components such as coal and carbonaceous shale. Uniformly graded materials, such as AASHTO M43 No. 57 aggregate, should only be utilized as structural fill with the permission of the Geotechnical Engineer.

Care should be exercised during the grading operations. Heavy equipment could create pumping and a general deterioration of site soils if conducted in the presence of water. Therefore, if at all possible, earthwork should be carried out during a dry season. This should minimize these potential problems, although they may not be eliminated. If such problems arise, the Geotechnical Engineer should be consulted for an evaluation of the conditions.

It is anticipated that it will be difficult to achieve proper compaction and acceptable moisture contents during periods of adverse weather conditions. Moisture conditioning, wetting or drying of the soils, should be anticipated to achieve proper compaction. The moisture conditioning can include scarification, mixing, or other processes of conditioning through chemical means such as lime stabilization, soil

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Page 7 cement, etc. The moisture contents of the soils should be controlled properly to avoid extensive construction delays.

Structural fills and backfills should be placed in relatively horizontal 8-inch (maximum) loose lifts and should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum dry density. Moisture contents should be maintained within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content.

5.4 Foundations

Based on our borings, conventional footing foundations may be utilized for support of the planned cutoff walls and wingwalls. Footings may be proportioned using a maximum allowable net bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. For this pressure, maximum total and differential settlements are anticipated to be within tolerable limits.

To preclude punching shear failures, cutoff wall and wingwall footings should be at least 18 inches wide. It is recommended that continuous footings be provided with longitudinal reinforcement. Proper longitudinal reinforcement is designed to provide the footings with greater bending capacity that should allow them to span across localized weak bearing zones that may go undetected during construction.

All footing excavations should be observed by a Geotechnical Engineer or their representative prior to the placement of the new culvert and footing reinforcement and concrete. Should inspections and tests indicate bearing soil conditions are inconsistent with the design bearing pressure, overexcavation and replacement should be performed. Our borings encountered dense alluvial gravelly soils in relatively close proximity to the anticipated bearing levels. Where overexcavations are extended to these materials, no widening of the overexcavations is required.

If overexcavations are performed to soils above the dense gravelly soils, they should be widened from each footing edge by one-half the overexcavation depth.

Overexcavation backfill materials should be granular soils meeting the gradation specifications of PennDOT 2A aggregate.

5.5 Seismic Site Class

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during the field exploration at the site, a Site Class “D”, as defined by Table 1613.5.2 of the International Building Code (IBC), is recommended for design purposes.

5.6 Earth Pressure Recommendations

New cutoff walls, wingwalls, and temporary shoring (support of excavation) if planned should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures. Lateral earth pressure is developed from the soils present within a wedge formed by the vertical wall and an imaginary line extending up and away from the bottom of the wall at an approximate 45° angle. The lateral earth pressures are determined by multiplying the vertical applied pressure by the appropriate lateral earth pressure coefficient K. Walls that are designed to limit rotation should be designed based

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Page 8 on at-rest (Ko) conditions. Walls designed to permit a limited amount of rotation should be designed based on active (Ka) conditions.

Recommended parameters for use in support-of-excavation shoring systems and structure wall designs are presented as follows.

Earth Pressure Parameter Recommendations

Material Type

Drained Friction Angle, φ' (Degrees)

Total Density, ϒ (pcf)

Coefficient of At-Rest Pressure

(Ko)

Coefficient of Active Pressure

(Ka)

Coefficient of Passive Pressure

(Kp) Existing Coarse-Grained Soils 28 125 0.53 0.36 1.85

Existing Fine-Grained Soils 24 115 0.56 0.39 1.71 Freely Draining Aggregate such as AASHTO M43 No.

57 Aggregate

35 110 0.43 0.27 2.46

Densely Graded Aggregate such as PennDOT 2A 35 130 0.43 0.27 2.46

The active and passive pressure coefficients presented above may be used for design only if the aggregate backfill extends back from the wall certain distances.

These are a horizontal distance approximately equal to or greater than the total height of the wall at the surface, and at least one foot beyond the heel of the wall footing. A Factor of Safety of 1.5 has been applied to passive pressure coefficients.

The values presented above were calculated based on positive foundation drainage being provided to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. A uniform surcharge load of 300 psf should be applied to the parameters provided above for vehicles. Temporary support of excavation systems should also be designed for surcharge loads imposed by cranes, material delivery vehicles and other heavy construction equipment.

An “equivalent fluid” pressure can be obtained from the above table values by multiplying the appropriate K-factor times the total unit weight of the soil. This applies to unsaturated conditions only. If a saturated “equivalent fluid” pressure is needed, the effective unit weight (total unit weight minus unit weight of water) should be multiplied times the appropriate K-factor and the unit weight of water added to that resultant. However, HCEA recommends that drainage be provided to relieve the pressure and does not recommend that the walls be designed with a hydrostatic load.

5.7 Groundwater and Drainage

As previously discussed, infiltrating groundwater was encountered within the depths explored at depths as shallow as approximately 6 feet. However, the boreholes were backfilled upon completion for safety reasons and therefore, long-term groundwater measurements were not made. Longer times may have been

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Page 9 required to stabilize groundwater levels within the boreholes. It is expected that groundwater will be encountered during excavations for the proposed abutments.

To resist uplift forces, any water infiltration resulting from precipitation, surface run-off, or a shallow interception of the groundwater table should be controlled by means of gravity ditching procedures to maintain the level of the groundwater below the culvert. However, during higher-precipitation periods of the year, higher groundwater conditions may exist and may warrant the installation of a wellpoint system. If any conditions are encountered which cannot be handled in such a manner, the Geotechnical Engineer should be consulted.

It is imperative that proper dewatering control measures are implemented to maintain groundwater out of the construction areas to provide for a stable work environment during the culvert construction and to prevent degradation to the culvert founding materials.

Any excavations may require slope flattening and/or sheeting and shoring to control sloughing. OSHA and MOSHA regulations must be followed during any excavation activities.

6.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES

Additional soil and foundation engineering, testing, and consulting services recommended for this project are summarized below:

Site Preparation and Proofrolling: A Geotechnical Engineer or experienced Soils Inspector should observe the proofrolling of the site after it has been stripped and excavated. The inspector should recommend if any undercutting or in-place densification is necessary to prepare a subgrade for fill placement or for structure support.

Fill Placement and Compaction: A Geotechnical Engineer or experienced Soils Inspector should witness any required filling operations and should take sufficient in-place density tests to verify that the specified degree of fill compaction is achieved. They should observe and approve borrow materials used and should determine if their existing moisture contents are suitable.

Footing Excavation Inspections: A Geotechnical Engineer or experienced Soils Inspector should test the footing excavations for the cutoff wall foundations. The inspector should verify that the design bearing pressure is available and that no loose pockets exist beneath the bearing surfaces of the footing excavations. Based on the inspection, the Inspector would either approve the bearing surfaces or recommend that loose or soft soils be undercut to expose satisfactory bearing materials.

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Page 10

7.0 REMARKS

This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of the site for the proposed construction. It is considered that adequate recommendations have been provided to serve as a basis for the design of plans and specifications. Additional recommendations can be provided as needed.

These analyses and recommendations are, of necessity, based on the information made available to us at the time of the actual writing of the report and the on-site conditions, surface and subsurface, that existed at the time the exploratory borings were drilled. Further assumption has been made that the limited exploratory borings, in relation both to the areal extent of the site and to depth, are representative of conditions across the site. The recommendations contained herein have been based on relatively widely spaced soil borings. Actual subsurface conditions encountered could vary from those outlined in this report.

If subsurface conditions are encountered that differ from those reported herein, this Office should be notified immediately so that the analyses and recommendations can be reviewed and/or revised as necessary. It is also recommended that:

1. We are given the opportunity to review any plans and specifications prepared subsequent to the final geotechnical study in order to comment on the interaction of the soil conditions as described herein and the design requirements.

2. A Geotechnical Engineer or experienced Soils Inspector is present at the site during the construction phase to verify installation according to the approved plans and specifications. This is particularly important during excavation, placement, and compaction of fill materials.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either implied or expressed. Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates, Inc. assumes no responsibility for interpretations made by others based on work or recommendations made by HCEA.

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Page 11

APPENDIX

Figure 1 - Project Location Map Figure 2 – Aerial Location Map Figure 3 – Boring Location Plan PADEP Coal Status Report Records of Subsurface Exploration Laboratory Test Results Field Classification Sheet

JOB NO:

DATE:

SCALE:

PAGE:

STC250123A

9.16.2025

NTS

DRAWN BY: GHK

Map adapted from USGS Topographic Map dated 2020

N

SITE

2929 Stewart Drive Suite 302, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-0552 Fax: (814) 231-0695

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 1

SCALE:

PAGE:

STC250123A

9.16.2025

NTS

DRAWN BY: GHK

Map adapted from Google Earth 2024 imagery

N

SITE

2929 Stewart Drive Suite 302, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-0552 Fax: (814) 231-0695

AERIAL LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 2

SCALE:

PAGE:

STC250123A

9.16.2025

NTS

DRAWN BY: GHK

N

2929 Stewart Drive Suite 302, State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-0552 Fax: (814) 231-0695

BORING LOCATION PLAN

FIGURE 3

School House Road GP-11

School House Road, Chapman Township, Clinton County, Pennsylvania

Legend

Approximate Test Boring Location

Plan developed using the PennCore Consulting drawing “Plan View” dated July 2025.

B-1

B-2

REVISED 10/4/2019 PAGE 1 OF 1

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DISTRICT MINING OPERATIONS

25 Technology Drive, California Technology Park, Coal Center, PA 15423

(724) 769-1100 www.dep.pa.gov/mining

COAL STATUS REPORT – BITUMINOUS COAL REGION

NAME: Garren Kunes SITE ADDRESS / LOCATION:

ADDRESS: Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates School House Rd Site gkunes@hcea.com 41.3501400 , -77.7010405

Latitude:41º 21’ 0.4”N Longitude:77º 42’ 3.7”W

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

MSI O & G OTHER

MUNICIPALITY: Chapman Twp.

COUNTY: Clinton

USGS QUADRANGLE: Renovo East

COAL SEAM RESEARCHED: N/A SURFACE ELEVATION: 660 FEET +/-

MINE NAME: N/A COAL SEAM ELEVATION: N/A FEET +/-

OPERATOR: N/A COVER* (OVERBURDEN): N/A FEET +/-

LAST MINING DATE: N/A

MINING UNDER OR NEAR THIS SITE: Yes No Future Possibility Unknown Coal Seam Non-Existent

REMARKS:

The site falls outside of the Bituminous Coal Fields of Pennsylvania.

REFERENCE SOURCES CHECKED

WPA MAPPING OSM MICROFILM

CDO MINE MAP INDEX BITUMINOUS COAL FIELDS OF PA PART II (SISLER)

DETAILED MINE MAP US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOLIOS

COAL RESOURCES OF

MINERAL RESOURCE REPORT 68 – Coal Distribution &

Thickness

OTHER DCNR Map 11

REPORT INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM: DCNR Map 11

BY: Mara Evans DATE: 9/19/2025

*COVER = Vertical distance between the ground surface and the coal seam.

Please note: This report is for informational purposes only and should not be considered an evaluation or assessment of environmental risks, liabilities, and/or concerns at the site. The information in this Coal Status Report is for the indicated point location only. Coal Status Reports are for underground coal mining information only. Information pertaining to surface coal mines and/or industrial mineral (non-coal) surface and underground mines is available from the applicable DEP District Mining Office for your site. Please visit www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Land/Mining/BureauofDistrictMining for further information.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this report may have been compiled from various sources. The Department cannot guarantee, and assumes no responsibility for, the accuracy, completeness, and/or veracity of the information in the report. The Department disclaims any responsibility for any actions, or the lack thereof, taken in reliance on the information contained in the report. The user agrees that the Department, its employees, officers, agents, or contractors will not be liable for any damages or losses resulting directly or indirectly from the use of, or reliance on, the information contained in the report.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

0.0' to 0.5': BITUMINOUS

CONCRETE

0.5' to 1.0': FILL - Gray, dry, medium dense, poorly-graded GRAVEL with sand (gp) 1.0' to 7.7': FILL - Dark brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND with gravel (SM)

7.7' to 11.0': ALLUVIUM - Dark brown, moist, soft, sandy SILT with gravel (ml)

11.0' to 30.0': ALLUVIUM - Dark brown, damp, dense to very dense, poorly-graded GRAVEL with sand (gp)

Boring terminated at approximately 30.0'

Unsampled from 0.0' to 2.0'

Gravel portions contain sandstone and limestone

S2+S3 Lab Tested:

USCS Class = SM

Non-Plastic Fines = 14.4%

Contains boulders and cobbles from approximately 12.5' to 30.0'

1.8'

2.0'

1.0'

0.0'

2.0'

2.0'

2.0'

0.1'

9.8

8.2

8-8-20-13

21-10-13-14

19-12-11-7

4-2-2-2

29-29-38-47

41-20-27-32

26-26-27-25

50/.1

50/1"

HILLIS - CARNES

ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

RECORDS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

Project Name School House Road GP-11 Boring No. B-1

Location School House Road, Chapman Township, Clinton County, Pennsylvania Job # STC250123A

SAMPLER

Datum PennCore "Plan View) Hammer Wt. 140 lbs. Hole Diameter 3.25" Foreman Mike Williams (HCEA)

Surf. Elev. 659 Ft. Hammer Drop 30 in. Rock Core Diameter N/A Inspector Garren Kunes (HCEA)

Date Started 9.15.2025 Pipe Size N/A in. Boring Method HSA Date Completed 9.15.2025

GROUND

WATER

CAVE IN

DEPTHSAMPLER TYPE SAMPLE CONDITIONS BORING METHOD

DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON UNLESS OTHERWISE D - DISINTEGRATED AT COMPLETION 6.0 ft. N/A ft. HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS

PT - PRESSED SHELBY TUBE I - INTACT AFTER 24 HRS. N/A ft. N.A ft. CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS

CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER U - UNDISTURBED AFTER HRS. ft. ft. DC - DRIVING CASING

RC - ROCK CORE L - LOST MD - MUD DRILLING

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST-DRIVING 2" O.D. SAMPLER 1' WITH 140# HAMMER FALLING 30": COUNT MADE AT 6" INTERVALS.

Elevation/

Depth

SOIL

SYMBOLS/

SAMPLE

CONDITIONS

Description Boring and Sampling

Notes Rec.

NM

SPT Blows N

SPT Blows/Foot

C u r v e

10 30 50

I

I

I

I

I

I

0.0' to 0.4': BITUMINOUS

CONCRETE

0.4' to 1.0': FILL - Gray, dry, medium dense, poorly-graded GRAVEL with sand (gp) 1.0' to 6.0': FILL - Dark brown, damp, medium dense to dense, silty SAND with gravel (sm)

6.0' to 7.5': FILL - Dark brown, damp, medium dense, silty sandy GRAVEL (gp-gm) 7.5' to 13.0': ALLUVIUM - Dark brown, moist, medium stiff, sandy SILT with gravel (ML)

13.0' to 20.0': ALLUVIUM - Medium to dark brown, damp, dense to very dense, poorly-graded GRAVEL with sand (gp)

Boring terminated at approximately 20.0'

Unsampled from 0.0' to 2.0'

Gravel portions contain sandstone and limestone

S-4 Lab Tested:

USCS Class = ML

Non-Plastic Fines = 50.8%

Boulders and cobbles present from approximately 12.7' to 20.0'

1.7'

1.0'

0.8'

0.3'

2.0'

2.0'

15.3

13-17-17-12

16-10-7-8

10-7-4-2

4-3-3-4

34-25-34-34

31-34-22-40

HILLIS - CARNES

ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

RECORDS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

Project Name School House Road GP-11 Boring No. B-2

Location School House Road, Chapman Township, Clinton County, Pennsylvania Job # STC250123A

SAMPLER

Datum PennCore "Plan View) Hammer Wt. 140 lbs. Hole Diameter 3.25" Foreman Mike Williams (HCEA)

Surf. Elev. 659 Ft. Hammer Drop 30 in. Rock Core Diameter N/A Inspector Garren Kunes (HCEA)

Date Started 9.15.2025 Pipe Size N/A in. Boring Method HSA Date Completed 9.15.2025

GROUND

WATER

CAVE IN

DEPTHSAMPLER TYPE SAMPLE CONDITIONS BORING METHOD

DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON UNLESS OTHERWISE D - DISINTEGRATED AT COMPLETION 6.0 ft. N/A ft. HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS

PT - PRESSED SHELBY TUBE I - INTACT AFTER 24 HRS. N/A ft. N.A ft. CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS

CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER U - UNDISTURBED AFTER HRS. ft. ft. DC - DRIVING CASING

RC - ROCK CORE L - LOST MD - MUD DRILLING

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST-DRIVING 2" O.D. SAMPLER 1' WITH 140# HAMMER FALLING 30": COUNT MADE AT 6" INTERVALS.

Elevation/

Depth

SOIL

SYMBOLS/

SAMPLE

CONDITIONS

Description Boring and Sampling

Notes Rec.

NM

SPT Blows N

SPT Blows/Foot

C u r v e

10 30 50

Tested By: RAS

Particle Size Distribution Report

PE

R C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 9.6 31.5 9.3 13.8 21.4 14.4 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: Boring 1, Composite of Samples S2 & S3 Sample Number: L25261 Depth: 4.0' to 7.7' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Medium to Dark Brown Silty Sand with Gravel 1.5

3/4 3/8 #4

#10 #16 #30 #50

#100 #200

100.0 98.1 90.4 69.8 58.9 49.6 45.4 39.8 31.1 20.4 14.4

NP NP NP

18.7843 15.9391 5.1642

2.0761 0.2792 0.0807

SM A-1-b

PennCore Consulting

School House Road GP-11

STC250123A

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

09/24/2025

STATE COLLEGE, PA

Tested By: RAS

Particle Size Distribution Report

PE

R C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 19.1 4.4 1.5 4.0 20.2 50.8 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: Boring 2, Sample 4 Sample Number: L25262 Depth: 8.0' to 10.0' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Medium Brown Sandy Silt with Gravel

3/4 3/8 #4

#10 #16 #30 #50

#100 #200

100.0 80.9 77.4 76.5 75.0 73.9 72.4 68.7 60.6 50.8

NP NP NP

22.3852 20.9485 0.1436

ML A-4(0)

PennCore Consulting

School House Road GP-11

STC250123A

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

09/24/2025

STATE COLLEGE, PA

09/22/25

RAS

Ton/ft² Sample # Sample

Depth (ft) Pan/Can

Weight of

Tare

Wet Weight and Tare

Dry Weight and Tare

Weight of Moisture

Weight of Dry Soil

Moisture

B1, S2 4-6 7 30.3 67.2 63.9 3.3 33.6 9.8

B1, S3 6-8 16 30.6 64.9 62.3 2.6 31.7 8.2

B2, S4 8-10 C 329.3 586.9 552.7 34.2 223.4 15.3

Date:

Performed By:

Project Name:

Project Number:

School House Road

STC250123A

Description of Soils – per ASTM D2487 Major Component Component Type Component Description Symbol Group Name

Coarse-Grained Soils, More than 50% is retained on the No. 200 sieve

Gravels – More than 50% of the coarse fraction is retained on the No. 4 sieve.

Coarse = 1” to 3” Medium = ½” to 1” Fine = ¼” to ½”

Clean Gravels <5% Passing No. 200 sieve

GW Well Graded Gravel

GP Poorly Graded Gravel

Gravels with fines, >12% Passing the No.

200 sieve

GM Silty Gravel

GC Clayey Gravel

Sands – More than 50% of the coarse fraction passes the No. 4 sieve.

Coarse = No.10 to No.4 Medium = No. 10 to No. 40 Fine = No. 40 to No. 200

Clean Sands <5% Passing No. 200 sieve

SW Well Graded Sand SP Poorly Graded Sand

Sands with fines, >12% Passing the No. 200 sieve

SM Silty Sand

SC Clayey Sand

Fine Grained Soils, More than 50% passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit is less than 50 Low to medium plasticity

Inorganic ML Silt CL Lean Clay

Organic OL Organic silt Organic Clay

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit of 50 or greater Medium to high plasticity

Inorganic MH Elastic Silt CH Fat Clay

Organic OH Organic Silt Organic Clay

Highly Organic Soils Primarily Organic matter, dark color, organic odor PT Peat

Proportions of Soil Components Particle Size Identification Componen t Form

Description Approximate percent by weight

Particle Size Particle dimension

Noun Sand, Gravel, Silt, Clay, etc. 50% or more Boulder 12” diameter or more Adjective Sandy, silty, clayey, etc. 35% to 49% Cobble 3” to 12” diameter Some Some sand, some silt, etc. 12% to 34% Gravel ¼” to 3” diameter Trace Trace sand, trace mica, etc.