Geotechnical_Report_-_Bridge_and_Master_Plan.pdf

ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services

National Cemetery of the Alleghenies – Master Planning

1158 Morgan Road Cecil Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania

ECS Project Number 40:1736

May 15, 2018

May 15, 2018

Mr. Mark Dyck, PLA, LEED® AP BD+C Gordon 148 S Queen Street, Suite 201 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401

ECS Project No. 40:1736

Reference: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services

National Cemetery of the Alleghenies – Master Planning 1158 Morgan Road Cecil Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania

Dear Mr. Dyck:

As authorized by the Gordon Task Order for Project 3265-0301–NCOTA (NCA Project No.

935PC2006), dated July 31, 2017, under the Department of Veterans Affairs Contract No. VA101F- 17D-2828, we have completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering analysis for the above-referenced project in Washington County, Pennsylvania.

The enclosed report discusses the subsurface exploration procedures, presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geophysical testing, laboratory testing programs, and presents our geotechnical considerations for the proposed improvements and associated site work. Additional information with regard to construction considerations, as well as other factors which may influence construction at the site, are discussed in detail in the accompanying report.

We have enjoyed being of service to Gordon on this project. If you have any questions with regard to the information and recommendations presented in the accompanying report, or if we may be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully submitted, ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC

Michael P. Krepsik, P.E. Jeffrey A. Shelton, P.E., LEED® AP Senior Project Engineer Branch Manager/Principal Engineer mkrepsik@ecslimited.com jshelton@ecslimited.com

Jared M. Neill, E.I.T.

Staff Project Manager jneill@ecslimited.com cc: Mr. Jason Gerhart, PE – Project Director/Senior Associate - Gordon mailto:mkrepsik@ecslimited.com mailto:jshelton@ecslimited.com mailto:jneill@ecslimited.com

National Cemetery of the Alleghenies – Master Planning May 15, 2018 ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.2 Scope of Services

1.2.1 Base Services

1.2.2 Variations

1.2.3 General

1.3 Authorization

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Location

2.2 Past Site History/Uses

2.3 Current Site Conditions

2.4 Proposed Construction

2.4.1 Site Civil Features

2.4.2 Structural Information/Loads

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.1 Field Exploration Program

3.1.1 Test Borings - General

3.1.2 Rock Coring

3.1.3 Test Borings – Site Development

3.1.4 Test Borings – Bridge/Embankment

3.1.5 Test Pits

3.2 Regional/Site Geology

3.3 Mine Subsidence Mapping

3.4 Landslide Susceptibility Mapping

3.5 Soil and Rock Characterization

3.5.1 Predominant Soil Types

3.5.2 Weathered Rock

3.5.3 Bedrock Summary

3.5.4 Coal Summary

3.6 Groundwater Observations

3.7 Geophysical Exploration Program

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

4.1 Coal Testing

4.2 Acid-Bearing Rock Testing

4.3 Topsoil Testing

5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Structure Design

5.1.1 Mine Subsidence Susceptibility

5.1.2 Shallow Foundations - Structures

5.1.3 Bridge Caisson Recommendations

5.1.4 Caisson Construction Recommendations

5.1.5 Ground Supported Slabs

5.1.6 Pre-Placed Crypts

5.1.7 Below-Grade Walls

5.1.8 Site Retaining Walls

5.1.9 Seismic Design Considerations

5.2 Site Design Considerations

5.2.1 Temporary and Permanent Slopes

5.2.2 Pavement Sections

5.2.3 Corrosion Potential

6.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Subgrade Preparation

6.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing

6.1.2 Proofrolling

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page ii

6.1.3 Site Temporary Dewatering

6.1.4 Subgrade Stabilization

6.2 Earthwork Operations

6.2.1 Existing Man-Placed Fill

6.2.2 Pyritic Soils

6.2.3 Coal Excavation

6.2.4 Rock/Weathered Rock Excavation

6.2.5 Earthwork Operations - Rock

6.2.6 Structural Fill Materials

6.2.7 Geotechnical Construction Details

6.2.8 Compaction

6.3 Foundation and slab observations

6.4 Utility Installations

6.5 General Construction Considerations

7.0 CLOSING

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Drawings & Reports

Site Location Diagram (Drawing 1 of 7)

USGS Topographic Map (Drawing 2 of 7)

Regional Geologic Map (Drawings 3 of 7)

DEP Mine Subsidence Insurance Map (Drawing 4 of 7)

Coal Crop Lines and Mined-Out Areas of the Pittsburgh Coal (Drawing 5 of 7)

Coal Crop Lines and Structure Contour Map (Drawing 6 of 7)

Landslide Susceptibility Map (Drawing 7 of 7)

Overall Site Plan (Sheet SP-1)

Estimated Bedrock Contour Map (Sheet SP-2)

Subsurface Exploration Location Diagram (Sheet SP-5)

Geotechnical Construction Details (Sheet D-1)

Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram

PA DEP Coal Status Report

Electrical Resistivity (ERI) Cross Sections – 1, 2, 4, and 6 through 8

Appendix B – Field Operations

• Reference Notes for Boring Logs

• Reference Notes for Rock Core Descriptions

• Boring Logs ECS-B-1 through ECS-B-38, ECS-B-58 through ECS-B-65, and ECS-PZ-1 through ECS-

PZ-9

• Test Pit Logs ECS-TP-1 through ECS-TP-32

• Piezometer Readings ECS-PZ-1 through ECS-PZ-9 from October 2017 to March 2018

Appendix C – Laboratory Testing

• Laboratory Test Results Summary

• Plasticity Chart

• Grain Size Analysis

• Standard Proctor

• California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

• Total Sulfur Content

• Coal Quality Testing

• Corrosion Series

• Topsoil Testing

• Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens

Appendix D – Caisson Design Information

• Summary of Caisson Foundation Recommendations Table

• Lateral Pile Analysis Output (RSPile)

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a cost impact on the planned development. Further, our principal foundation recommendations are summarized. Information gleaned from the executive summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.

The geotechnical exploration performed for the site included 55 soil test borings utilizing soil drilling and rock coring techniques to achieve depths of up to 68 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs), and 33 test pits at the site.

From an engineering standpoint, we encountered three predominant soil groupings at the site.

For convenience, these can be classified as materials that essentially can be utilized as fill materials without qualification, those materials with moderate plasticity indexes, which will contribute to some site difficulties but otherwise have only some limitations, and those highly plastic materials that have severe limitations for reuse.

Generally, those materials with few limitations would be classified as LEAN CLAY (CL), CLAYEY

SAND (SC) and CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC) soils, with SILT (ML) and SILTY GRAVEL (GM) materials occasionally encountered. These materials typically have plasticity indexes below 20, and often times below 15.

The on-site materials may generally be reused as structural fill provided that they do not contain organics or foreign debris, are not highly plastic or expansive (i.e. pyrite), are not environmentally impacted and conform to the criteria outlined above. Based on observations made during the subsurface exploration program and following visual observation of the recovered soil samples, the majority of the soils encountered at each of the boring locations are likely to be suitable for reuse as structural fill material.

Rough concept grading for the Master Planning phase was provided within the Preferred

Development Plan, (Drawing No. G-502, prepared by Gordon, dated February 5, 2018). Based on the one cross section provided, we anticipate that cuts on the order of 15 to 20 feet will be required to facilitate the site grades proposed. Based on the elevations provided, and the results of the borings in the general area, it appears that excavations/cuts into decomposed/weathered rock will be required in the general area of Section 21. Excavations in this area would require cutting into very dense/hard weathered rock, and possibly bedrock, to achieve the planned final site elevations. It does not appear, based on our borings and the preliminary site plan, that excavations below our auger refusal depths will be required across the majority of the site.

Based on the results of the coal quality testing, the samples tested indicate the coal below the site will be of little commercial value, based on the relatively low btu values and relatively high

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 2 moisture and ash contents. Therefore, removal of coal during earthwork operations under a surface mining permit and offering excavated coal for sale is not recommended. Based on our review of the associated cross section for the proposed cut slope within the southwestern portion of the site (Section 25), it does not appear that significant coal seams encountered within the test borings will be exposed. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

(PADEP), coal encountered during earthwork excavation activities must be handled under a DEP-approved handling plan and associated permits.

We understand that the pre-placed crypts are to be constructed as fill is placed, once the crypt subgrade elevation has been reached. The subgrade soils of the pre-placed crypts should be evaluated as described in section 6.1 Subgrade Preparation. We recommend that the crypt section utilize a drainage layer beneath the crypts. Please see the detail of the crypt drainage section in Figure 5.1.6.1.

Considering that the burial crypts are to be constructed below ground, they are considered to act as below-grade walls. Below-grade walls should be designed to withstand lateral earth pressures and surcharge loads. We recommend that the below-grade walls be designed for a laterally increasing at-rest earth pressure of 60 psf per vertical foot of wall. This lateral pressure assumes that native CL materials (or more granular) with LL less than or equal to 40, PI less than or equal to 20 and Expansion Index less than or equal to 20 are used for wall backfill. In order to maintain a 60 psf lateral earth pressure, drainage of the backfill must be provided.

Based on the encountered subsurface materials and considering the proposed concept grading for the site, we anticipate that new site structures will bear upon both existing site soils and new structural fill. We recommend that traditional shallow foundations should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for both the site natural soils, as well as properly placed structural fill. Additional recommendations for foundations are presented in Section 5.1.2

Shallow Foundations.

Due to the anticipated loading for the bridge crossing Morgan Road, spread foundations were determined to not be practical for bridge support. Several deep foundation options were considered; however, due to noise considerations for the nearby administration building and operational cemetery, driving piles was not considered desirable. We anticipate caissons to be the most cost effective deep foundation option.

The design bearing capacity of drilled shafts/caissons is achieved through a combination of end bearing and side (skin) friction resistance. The drilled shafts/caissons should be designed for a maximum allowable capacity of 40 ksf. Based on the results of the lateral analysis, it was determined than a minimum 11-foot rock socket was needed for geotechnical fixity of the caissons. Based on the test boring information, provided pile cap elevations, loading conditions, and our analysis, estimated caisson depths range from approximately 16.5 to 28 feet below existing site grades.

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering analysis for the Master Planning Phase of the overall expansion to the existing cemetery, in Cecil

Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania. The project site is located across Morgan Road from the existing National Cemetery of the Alleghenies (NCOTA) on the southern side of Morgan

Road. The approximate location of the site is indicated on the Site Location Diagram (Drawing 1 of 7) included in Appendix A of this report.

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.2.1 Base Services

Our comprehensive scope of services on this project, in addition to our current geotechnical evaluation, included wetlands delineation and geophysical testing consisting of electrical resistivity imaging (ERI). Each of these services is addressed in detail under separate cover. The primary purpose of the ERI testing was to identify potential water bearing strata as part of our

Report of Hydrogeologic Study (ECS Job No. 01:27031, dated May 10, 2018). ERI lines 1 through 4 and 6 through 8 (Line 5 was omitted) were also utilized to assist in our estimation of depth to bedrock and the preparation of a Bedrock Contour Diagram, included in this report. ERI lines 1, 2, 4, and 6 through 8, were performed within the limits of the Master Planning Phase, and are included in Appendix A of this report.

Based on the proposed development plan, the scope of services for our geotechnical study included:

Mobilize a track-mounted drilling rig and track-mounted excavator to the site.

Perform 47 test borings, referenced as ECS-B-1 to ECS-B-38 and ECS-PZ-1 to ECS-PZ-9, to minimum depths of 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) across the site, or bedrock termination, whichever was encountered first.

Perform Standard Penetration Test (SPT) at continuous intervals within the borings.

Perform rock coring within select borings (10) to extend borehole depths to below the bottom of mapped coal seams (40 feet of rock coring per selected borehole).

Measure depth of groundwater within each boring at time of drilling and, where possible, prior to backfilling.

Install 1 inch, PVC piezometers in 9 test borings, referenced as PZ-1 through PZ-9.

Excavate 26 test pits, referenced as TP-1 through TP-25, including Test Pit TP-15A, to explore for potential coal seams and to obtain bulk samples of coal for coal quality testing.

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 4

1.2.2 Variations

The following items were not proposed to be performed as part of our scope of services. During the course of the project these items were requested to be added to the project scope.

Perform eight (8) additional borings, referenced as ECS-B-58 through ECS-B-65, to evaluate soils and provide foundation recommendations for the proposed bridge across Morgan Road.

Perform Lateral Pile Analysis for caisson design, using the RSPile software program

(Change Order No. 1, ECS 40:1444-GP, dated April 26, 2018.)

Excavate seven (7) test pits, referenced as TP-26 through TP-32, to establish a general correlation between auger refusal and bucket refusal.

1.2.3 General

The number and general location of the borings were selected by ECS based on the anticipated concept design, as drawings were not available at the time of drilling. The boring locations were staked and surveyed in the field by Gordon. ECS selected the test pit locations based on proximity to test borings within proposed cut areas. We have included elevations on the boring and test pit logs included in the Appendix of this report. The elevations noted on the boring logs and test pit logs TP-1 through TP-25 were provided by Gordon after the locations were surveyed. It is important to note that these elevations are only as accurate as the survey from which they were obtained. Test pit elevations for TP-15A and TP-26 through TP-32 were interpolated from the elevations of adjacent test borings. The approximate boring and test pit locations are depicted on the Subsurface Exploration Location Diagram (Drawing SP-5) included in Appendix A of this report.

A detailed breakdown of the services provided is included in the list below.

a) Details from our site observations including current site conditions, surface drainage features, and surface topographic conditions.

b) A review of the published geologic conditions and their relevance to your planned development, including historic mining information.

c) A detailed, site-specific mining research study to further evaluate the potential undermining and surface mining. This study includes desktop research through a variety of local mining resources, including the Office of Surface Mines, PA DEP, and DCNR. It is important to note that the level of available information varies from site to site.

d) A subsurface characterization and a description of the field exploration and laboratory tests performed. Ground water concerns relative to the planned construction, if any, are summarized.

e) Final logs of the soil borings and records of the field exploration prepared in accordance with the standard practice for geotechnical engineering, including a bedrock contour map.

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 5

Subsurface profiles (cross-sections) are provided as appropriate. A boring location plan is included, and the results of the laboratory tests is plotted on the final boring logs or included on separate sheets.

f) Measurement of the topsoil, asphalt, and/or existing fill thicknesses at each boring and test pit location and notation of this information on the boring logs and in the text of the report.

g) Evaluation of the on-site soil characteristics encountered in the soil borings and test pits.

Specifically, we have discussed the suitability of the on-site materials for reuse as structural fill. We have also included compaction requirements and suitable material guidelines.

h) Evaluation of depth to rock and recommendations for rock excavation and removal, including blasting, as reuse of rock materials as structural fill.

i) Recommendations for seismic site classification and seismic coefficients in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC 2009). This analysis is based on the Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) method described in Section (1613.5.2) of IBC.

j) We have provided California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results for representative samples of the soils encountered and provided recommendations for use in preliminary design of asphalt and concrete pavements. If necessary, we have provided recommendations for subgrade stabilization.

k) Provided foundation bearing capacity, recommended foundation types, and construction recommendations for new site structures.

l) Recommendations for additional testing and/or consultation that might be required to complete the geotechnical assessment and related engineering for this project.

m) Additional geotechnical recommendations requested by the design team members.

n) Consult on coal removal permitting, if required, to support the proposed site grading plans.

Determining who owns the coal rights, preparation of coal removal permit application package, and submission to PA DEP is excluded from the current scope of work.

Please note that only the relevant information from within the Master Planning development area has been included with this report.

1.3 AUTHORIZATION

Our services were provided in accordance with the Gordon Task Order for Project 3265-0301 –

NCOTA (NCA Project No. 935PC2006), dated July 31, 2017, as authorized by Mr. Mark Dyck on July

31, 2017. It includes the Terms and Conditions of Service outlined in the Master Service

Agreement between Gordon and ECS, and references the “Prime Agreement” between Gordon and the Department of Veterans Affairs, under contract number VA101F-17D-2828. Lateral pile analysis and specifications were authorized under Gordon Project/Task No. 3265-0301-003A-

0001A, dated June 26, 2018, as authorized by Mr. Jason Gerhart on April 30, 2018.

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 6

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The overall project site is located along Morgan Road, between its intersection with County Line

Road to the west and a bridge over Raymond P Shafer Highway (I-79) to the east in Cecil

Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania. The site has a mailing address of 1158 Morgan

Road, Bridgeville, Pennsylvania. The overall site is roughly rectangular-shaped and is bisected by

Morgan Road. The Master Planning Phase development encompasses the property to the south of Morgan Road. The southern portion of the property is comprised of approximately 116 acres and is currently developed with a single asphalt roadway and two, single-story pre-engineered metal buildings. The southern portion of the site is largely un-developed, with the only site development consisting of an existing asphalt maintenance road originating from Morgan Road accessing a maintenance shed in the south central portion of the site. A relatively small, private cemetery exists within the northeastern portion of the site.

The area for the current Master Planning Study is limited to the portion of the site located south of Morgan Road. According to the Preferred Development Plan, (Drawing No. G-502, prepared by

Gordon, dated February 5, 2018) the Master Planning Phase is bound by Morgan Road to the north, the western and southern property lines, and Interstate 79 to the east. Based on our observations during our field explorations, as well as the existing topography noted on the

Preferred Development Plan, the site is gently undulating and generally slopes downwards from west to the east.

The approximate extents of the Master Planning Phase exploration are depicted in the Site

Location Diagram (Drawing 1 of 7) included in Appendix A of this report and in the figure below.

Figure 2.1.1 Approximate Site Location and Master Planning Phase Extents

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 7

2.2 PAST SITE HISTORY/USES

A Phase 1 ESA was not available at the time of this report preparation. A brief review of historic aerial photography suggests that site was previously used as farm land and was developed with an apparent farmhouse and associated barn-type structures in the approximate middle of the

Master Planning portion of the site, dating back to at least 1947. The site appears to have been used as farmland until as recently as 2006. By 2008, it appears that the previously existing farm house has been torn down and the existing metal support building appears to have been constructed. The site appears to have changed relatively little since the 2008 photograph.

2.3 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS

The Master Planning Phase portion of the site is generally undeveloped, with the exception of the support buildings and private cemetery in the generally south central portion of the site. The majority of the Master Planning area generally consists of rolling grassed hills across the site.

Based on site observations, the grades at the site are generally higher on either side of the currently existing stream that runs along the approximate middle of the project site, gently sloping downwards towards the stream area.

Existing topographic contours were provided at the time of exploration on a CAD file provided by

Gordon. Site elevations range from approximately El. 1200 at the western side of the site and slope downwards to El. 1080 at the eastern property boundary along I-79.

According to the USGS Canonsburg, PA Quadrangle map, dated 2016, elevations within the property and the immediate surrounding area are gently rolling, sloping from northwest to southeast from approximately EL. 1200 feet MSL at the northwestern portion of the site, down to

EL. 1100 at the south central portion of the site. A copy of the USGS topographic map (Drawing 2 of 7) is included in Appendix A of this report.

2.4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

Based on the information provided, including the Preferred Development Plan, the site improvements are to include the development of new asphalt roadways, 16 new casket and 15 new cremain plots, as well as new columbarium complexes ‘E’ through ‘H’. New internment areas include pre-placed crypts (referenced as Sections 15 through 17, 19, 21 through 26, 29, and 30), new in-ground cremain sites (referenced as Sections C11 through C25), and new private vaults

/over-sized plots (referenced as Sections 18, 20, 27, and 28). In total, the new development will add an additional 51,761 gravesites to the current cemetery.

Access will be provided to the site at three locations, two of which originate from Morgan Road.

The third access point will be provided via a bridge, connecting the proposed southern portion of the cemetery to the existing northern area. Site development for the Master Planning Phase will also include the construction of the new bridge. The development of the new roads appears to

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 8 consist of two new irregularly shaped loops that will provide access to the new interment areas at the site. The two loops are aligned approximately parallel with each other and will be connected by a single road that also provides access to the maintenance building and outsourced contractor yard. A single road spur and traffic turn around protrudes at the northern end of the southern loop to give access to more internment areas.

2.4.1 Site Civil Features

Unlabeled concept grading contours were included on the Preferred Development Plan provided for our review. Based on the Master Plan – Profile Section (prepared by Gordon, dated February 5, 2018), we anticipate that extensive site grading, with cuts on the order of +/- 20 feet and fills on the order of +/- 30 feet, will be required to establish the anticipated site grades.

A potential irrigation pond is noted on the Preferred Development Plan, however stormwater management (SWM) features and site retaining walls are not indicated on the site plan provided, therefore; evaluation of these site features is generally not included in our current scope of services. However, as pre-placed crypts (acting as below-grade walls) and below-grade walls will likely be constructed at the site, we have provided general recommendations for these features.

2.4.2 Structural Information/Loads

Detailed project information, such as structural loading conditions and drawings, including civil, structural or architectural plans, were not available at the time of this report preparation. Based on the Preferred Development Plan, we anticipate the majority of the structures to be built at the site, including the columbariums, will be relatively lightly loaded.

Detailed structural loading information was provided for the proposed bridge by the project structural engineer, Modjeski and Masters, Inc. (M&M). The information provided is summarized in the tables below.

Table 2.4.2.1 – Bridge Pier Loading

Limit State Loads per Caisson (kips) Moment per Caisson at Base of Caisson Cap (kip-ft) Vertical Horizontal

Strength I-Min 261.4 100.3 867.8

Strength I-Max 444.8 206.9 1820.6

Service I-Min 287.2 111.4 964.3

Service I-Max 335.7 149.2 1315.2

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 9

Table 2.4.2.2 – Bridge Wingwall Loading

Limit State Loads per Caisson (kips) Moment per Caisson at Base of Caisson Cap (kip-ft) Vertical Horizontal

Strength I-Min 265.2 100.0 786.3

Strength I-Max 469.9 286.9 2182.7

Service I-Min 278.7 111.1 873.6

Service I-Max 342.6 183.0 1372.1

The description of the proposed project is based on the information provided by you and members of the project team. If any of this information is inaccurate, either due to our misunderstanding or design changes that may occur at a later date, we recommend that ECS be contacted in order to provide alternative recommendations that may be warranted.

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 10

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

The field exploration was planned with the objective of characterizing the project site in general geotechnical and geological terms and to evaluate subsequent field and laboratory data to assist in the determination of geotechnical recommendations.

3.1.1 Test Borings - General

Prior to drilling operations, Pennsylvania One-Call was contacted to locate and clear/mark underground utilities at the site. Boring locations were adjusted, if necessary, in the field, based on these markings.

The soil borings were performed with track-mounted (Diedrich D-50 and GeoProbe 7822DT) auger drill rigs which utilized continuous flight, hollow stem augers to advance the boreholes. Drilling fluid was not used during the soil drilling at each boring location. Following completion of drilling operations, each of the borings was backfilled with the spoils generated during the drilling process. Some post drilling settlement should be expected. A copy of the CAD file provided by

Gordon has been modified to show the test boring locations across the entire NCOPA site (Sheet

SP-1) and the Master Planning (Sheet SP-5) areas. These drawings are included in Appendix A of this report.

In the soil borings, representative soil samples were obtained by means of the split-barrel sampling procedure in general accordance with ASTM Standard D 1586. In this procedure, a 2-inch O.D., split-barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 or 24 inches by a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through a 12-inch interval is termed the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) value and is indicated for each sample on the boring logs. This value can be used as a qualitative indication of the in-place relative density of cohesionless soils and, in a somewhat less reliable way, the consistency of cohesive soils.

A field log of the soils encountered in the borings was maintained by the drill crew. After recovery, each sample was removed from the sampler and visually classified. Representative portions of each sample were then sealed in jars and brought to our laboratory for further visual examination.

3.1.2 Rock Coring

Following auger refusal in the borings that were scheduled for evaluation of bedrock, rock coring techniques using a NQ-diamond drilling bit were utilized to advance the borings beyond auger refusal to obtain intact rock samples. Rock coring was performed in Borings ECS-B-16 through 21, ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 11

24, 25 and 58 through 61. The borings were extended an additional 4 to 40 feet beyond auger refusal in an attempt to explore for potential coal seams and evaluate rock quality.

Please note that water was not introduced into the borehole during the rock coring process;

therefore, any water encountered in the rock was included on the logs. Following completion of drilling operations, each of these borings was also backfilled with the spoils generated during the drilling process. The holes created during the rock coring process were plugged with bentonite, with the additional spoils mounded over the borings in grassy areas. Some post drilling settlement should be expected.

3.1.3 Test Borings – Site Development

Forty-seven (47) test borings were drilled to evaluate site development. The following table summarizes the number and elevations of the borings performed for the Master Planning Phase.

Table 3.1.3.1 – Boring Summary

Boring Number Surface

Elevation

Soil/Depth to Auger Refusal

(ft)

Auger Refusal Elevation (ft)

Depth of Rock Cored (ft)

ECS-B-1 1178.03 23.0 1155.0 -

ECS-B-2 1150.30 26.0 1124.3 -

ECS-B-3 1188.60 20.2 1168.4 -

ECS-B-4 1149.30 25.0 1124.3 -

ECS-B-5 1107.91 22.0 1085.9 -

ECS-B-6 1159.20 10.5 1148.7 -

ECS-B-7 1149.02 28.8 1120.2 -

ECS-B-8 1149.54 10.3 1139.2 -

ECS-B-9 1110.06 16.7 1093.4 -

ECS-B-10 1118.70 25.0 1093.7 -

ECS-B-11 1119.15 17.0 1102.2 -

ECS-B-12 1124.27 15.0 1109.3 -

ECS-B-13 1129.96 21.0 1109.0 -

ECS-B-14 1109.86 22.0 1087.9 -

ECS-B-15 1115.36 23.0 1092.4 -

ECS-B-16 1146.59 27.0 1119.6 25

ECS-B-17 1088.90 22.0 1066.9 8

ECS-B-18 1113.65 28.0 1085.7 40

ECS-B-19 1173.40 23.0 1150.4 25

ECS-B-20 1172.40 23.2 1149.2 40

ECS-B-21 1173.93 14.8 1159.1 20

ECS-B-22 1158.79 37.5 1121.3 -

ECS-B-23 1160.20 15.0 1145.2 -

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 12

Surface

Elevation

Soil/Depth to Auger Refusal

(ft)

Auger Refusal Elevation (ft)

Depth of Rock Cored (ft)

ECS-B-24 1209.53 14.0 1195.5 24

ECS-B-25 1166.43 25.2 1141.2 40

ECS-B-26 1149.83 25.2 1124.6 4

ECS-B-27 1150.43 31.5 1118.9 -

ECS-B-28 1163.92 13.5 1150.4 -

ECS-B-29 1155.79 11.0 1144.8 -

ECS-B-30 1105.65 28.1 1077.6 -

ECS-B-31 1172.50 27.0 1145.5 -

ECS-B-32 1182.80 20.2 1162.6 -

ECS-B-33 1168.36 20.4 1148.0 -

ECS-B-34 1161.81 19.5 1142.3 -

ECS-B-35 1143.10 16.5 1126.6 -

ECS-B-36 1126.74 13.7 1113.0 -

ECS-B-37 1124.19 29.0 1095.2 -

ECS-B-38 1128.03 14.0 1114.0 -

ECS-PZ-1 1118.39 28.5 1089.9 -

ECS-PZ-2 1185.04 29.6 1155.4 -

ECS-PZ-3 1148.57 20.7 1127.9 -

ECS-PZ-4 1168.38 23.2 1145.2 -

ECS-PZ-5 1129.87 22.3 1107.6 -

ECS-PZ-6 1090.16 28.0 1062.2 -

ECS-PZ-7 1131.97 17.0 1115.0 -

ECS-PZ-8 1099.47 24.1 1075.4 -

ECS-PZ-9 1115.33 20.0 1095.3 -

3.1.4 Test Borings – Bridge/Embankment

ECS remobilized to the site to perform eight (8) borings for a proposed bridge across Morgan Road to connect the existing cemetery to the proposed new development. The bridge will be located roughly in the central part of the cemetery near the existing administration building.

The following table summarizes the number and elevations of the borings performed for the bridge and associated embankment areas.

Table 3.1.4.1 – Bridge Boring Summary

Surface

Elevation

Soil/Depth to Auger Refusal

(ft)

Auger Refusal Elevation (ft)

Depth of Rock Cored (ft)

ECS-B-58 1158.62 15.0 1143.6 20

ECS-B-59 1162.515 14.5 1148.0 20

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 13

Elevation

Soil/Depth to Auger Refusal

(ft)

Auger Refusal Elevation (ft)

Depth of Rock Cored (ft)

ECS-B-60 1163.69 19.0 1144.7 20

ECS-B-61 1161.66 16.5 1145.2 20

ECS-B-62 1156.31 16.6 1139.7 -

ECS-B-63 1168.74 15.2 1153.5 -

ECS-B-64 1161.58 21.0 1140.6 -

ECS-B-65 1145.68 14.0 1131.7 -

3.1.5 Test Pits

The 26 test pits were excavated by a subcontractor of ECS using a John Deere 160G LC track-mounted excavator with a maximum reach of approximately 19.2 feet. The test pits were observed by a representative of ECS. Upon completion of each of the test pits, the excavations were backfilled with the spoils generated during the test pit excavation. Excess spoils were mounded over the test pit excavation. It should be noted that the areas disturbed by the test pitting operations may experience some future settlement or may require stabilization during subgrade preparation operations if they are located in future structural areas (i.e. sidewalks, drive aisles, roadways).

The test pits performed during our most recent mobilization were intended to both explore for potential coal and to establish a general correlation between auger refusal in the borings and bucket refusal in the test pits. A summary of the test pits performed to explore for coal outcrops is summarized below. Test Pit TP-15A was performed as an offset to TP-15 due to the originally scheduled test pit encountering bucket refusal within undocumented fill materials. TP-15A encountered natural soils beneath the existing fill materials.

Table 3.1.5.1 – Test Pit Summary

Test Pit Surface

Elevation (ft)

Test Pit Depth (ft)

ECS-TP-1 1140.70 10

ECS-TP-2 1178.62 10

ECS-TP-3 1199.01 8

ECS-TP-4 1138.52 10

ECS-TP-5 1107.40 10

ECS-TP-6 1139.12 10

ECS-TP-7 1165.16 10

ECS-TP-8 1139.97 7

ECS-TP-9 1140.10 10

ECS-TP-10 1111.04 10

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 14

Elevation (ft)

Test Pit Depth (ft)

ECS-TP-11 1079.78 10

ECS-TP-12 1079.46 10

ECS-TP-13 1100.28 10

ECS-TP-14 1093.89 10

ECS-TP-15 1142.16 8

ECS-TP-15A ̴1142 10

ECS-TP-16 1120.04 10

ECS-TP-17 1099.21 10

ECS-TP-18 1140.14 10

ECS-TP-19 1160.07 10

ECS-TP-20 1139.77 10

ECS-TP-21 1139.76 10

ECS-TP-22 1139.38 10

ECS-TP-23 1140.60 10

ECS-TP-24 1166.27 10

ECS-TP-25 1143.19 7

After mobilization to the site, ECS was requested to perform a series of seven (7) additional test pits to evaluate the excavatability of the hard residual soils and weathered rock across the cut areas. Test Pits ECS-TP-26 through ECS-TP-32 were performed in the general vicinity of Test

Borings ECS-B-19, 20, 21, 24, 29, 31, and 32 respectively. The following table summarizes the results of the correlation test pits.

Table 3.1.5.2 – Correlation Test Pit Summary

Number

Corresponding Boring

Approximate Surface

Elevation (ft)

Depth to Bucket

Refusal (ft)

Bucket Refusal Elevation (ft)

ECS-TP-26 ECS-B-19 1172 13.0 1159.0

ECS-TP-27 ECS-B-20 1149 11.0 1138.0

ECS-TP-28 ECS-B-21 1174 12.0 1162.0

ECS-TP-29 ECS-B-24 1210 13.0 1197.0

ECS-TP-30 ECS-B-29 1156 10.0 1146.0

ECS-TP-31 ECS-B-31 1172 11.0 1161.0

ECS-TP-32 ECS-B-32 1183 11.0 1172.0

For additional information on the general correlation between auger refusal in the borings and bucket refusal in the test pits, see Section 6.2.4 – Rock/Weathered Rock Excavation.

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 15

Representative soil samples were also obtained from the test pits and stored in sample bags to be brought to our laboratory for further visual examination. A field log was maintained by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Visual soil classifications and approximate depths of each stratum were recorded for each test pit.

3.2 REGIONAL/SITE GEOLOGY

Based on the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Geologic Map (PA DCNR), dated 2014, the project site is mapped as being underlain by the Waynesburg Formation (PPw) of the Permian and Pennsylvanian System.

The Waynesburg Formation consists of cyclic sequences of sandstone, shale, limestone, and coal with commercial coals present. The base of the formation is at the bottom of the Waynesburg

Coal. The formation is part of the Waynesburg Hills Section of the Appalachian Plateaus

Physiographic Province.

A copy of the geologic map (Drawing 3 of 7) is included in the Appendix of this report.

3.3 MINE SUBSIDENCE MAPPING

In addition to the geologic mapping of the site, we also reviewed the information contained on the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) Mine Subsidence Insurance

Maps the PA DEP Mine Map Atlas (http://www.depgis.state.pa.us/msiRisk/). Based on the information reviewed, the project site appears to be located in an area where historic deep underground mining has been performed. A copy of the PA DEP Mine Subsidence Insurance Map

(Drawing 4 of 7) is included in Appendix A of this report.

Due to the potential risk of mining beneath the site, a review of the Coal Resources of Washington

County, Pennsylvania, (PA DEP Mineral Resource Report 93, Part 1, dated 1987) was performed prior to our mobilization to determine whether the site was mapped as being deep mined. Based on this information it appeared that the site was underlain by the Pittsburgh Coal Seam at approximately EL 780 MSL, with approximately 400 feet of overburden and was recorded as deep mined. Copies of the PA DEP Coal Crop Lines and Mined-Out Areas of the Pittsburgh Coal

(Drawing 5 of 7) and the PA DEP Coal Crop Lines and Structure Contour Map (Drawing 6 of 7) are included in Appendix A of this report.

A site-specific mining study was also requested for the site. The PA DEP District Mining Operations office was contacted to research the mining history below the site and provide a detailed, site specific Coal Status Report. Based on the information provided, the Pittsburgh Coal beneath the site was mined as part of Mine No. 2, operated by the National Mining Company. According to the PA DEP, the mine was last operational in 1935 and prior. The Pittsburgh Coal below the site is at approximately EL 780 MSL, with overburden in the 400 foot range, similar to the information obtained from the Mineral Resource Reports. Based on the available information, the site http://www.depgis.state.pa.us/msiRisk/

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 16 appears to have been undermined in conjunction with historic mining activities in the area. Based on the amount of overburden present, the potential for mine subsidence related issues at the site is considered to be relatively low. A copy of the Coal Status Report is also included in Appendix A of this report.

Based on the available information, while impacts from potential mine subsidence is considered to be low, some inherent risk as compared to a site that has not been undermined does exist.

Please refer to section 5.1.1 Mine Subsidence Susceptibility for more information regarding the presence of a mine beneath the site.

3.4 LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY MAPPING

We also reviewed the information contained on the Landslides and Related Features of the

Canonsburg, PA Quadrangle map, prepared by the US Geologic Survey (USGS), dated 1978 (Open

File Map 78-1057 C-15). Based on the information reviewed, the site does not appear to be located in an area susceptible to land sliding.

A copy of the Landslide Susceptibility Map (Drawing 7 of 7) is included in Appendix A of this report.

3.5 SOIL AND ROCK CHARACTERIZATION

3.5.1 Predominant Soil Types

From an engineering standpoint, we can generally group soil materials into three predominant soil groupings. These can be classified as materials that essentially can be utilized as fill materials without qualification, those materials with moderate plasticity indexes, which will contribute to some site difficulties but otherwise have only some limitations, and those highly plastic materials that have severe limitations for reuse. Within the Master Planning Phase, we predominantly encountered materials belonging to the group of materials that can be used without qualification, as indicated by the laboratory testing, and visual classifications of the samples.

Generally, those materials with few limitations would be classified as LEAN CLAY (CL), CLAYEY

SAND (SC) and CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC) soils, with SILT (ML) and SILTY SAND (SM) materials occasionally encountered. These materials typically have plasticity indexes below 20, and often times below 15.

The second soil type is those materials classified as having moderate difficulties with regard to utilization. These materials are typically CLAY materials with plasticity indexes in the range of 20 to 30. For the most part, materials with plasticity indexes in this range will be difficult to utilize as structural fill, due to their sensitivity, but generally lack high shrink-swell potential. As such, they can be utilized as fill across the majority of the site, but would generally be considered unsuitable

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 17 for the final 1 to 2 feet of fill within structural areas, and as backfill around below grade wall perimeters.

The third predominant soil type encountered is classified as those materials that have severe limitation. These materials are, occasionally classified as CLAYS but are more commonly classified as FAT CLAYS (CH) materials. These materials have plasticity indexes well in excess of 30, and present severe limitations with regard to use as structural fill, in both structure and roadway areas. When utilized as fill these materials generally should not be placed as fill under structures.

In roadways, they typically should be capped with at least 2 feet of select materials and preferably

4 feet of select material. These soils are highly sensitive to disturbance caused by moisture and construction equipment, and also present significant shrink-swell potential. These materials are also not suitable for reuse in site slopes.

Materials falling into the second and third categories were generally not encountered within the borings and test pits performed within the Master Planning Phase. These materials may still be encountered within other areas of the site not explored, as such; we recommend that materials are continually evaluated at the time of construction.

On our individual boring/test pit logs, the soil types that were observed in our subsurface exploration operations are classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, which include the various soil designations cited previously. The test boring and test pit logs performed within the Master Planning area are included in Appendix B of this report.

3.5.2 Weathered Rock

Weathered rock was encountered in each of the borings performed at the site prior to auger refusal and/or rock coring. The weathered rock strata generally exhibited N-values in excess of

60 bpf. The samples classified as weathered rock exhibited very hard/dense in-situ consistencies/densities and maintained a relic rock structure, while breaking down into soil size particles by hand with little effort. The depths where weathered rock was encountered across the site is summarized in the table below. In the table, highly weathered rock was classified as those materials which had greater than 50 bpf to 50 blows for 4 inches of penetration, while weathered rock was classified as those materials that exhibited 50 blows for 3 inches or lower of penetration.

These materials are both noted as “weathered rock” on the boring logs.

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 18

Table 3.5.2.1 –Highly Weathered and Weathered Rock(1)

Boring Approximate

Ground Elevation (ft)

Highly Weathered Rock (2) Weathered Rock (3) Top of Rock

(Auger Refusal)

Depth (ft)

Approximate Elevation (ft)

Depth (ft)

Approximate Elevation (ft)

Depth (ft)

Approximate Elevation (ft)

ECS-B-1 1178.03 8.0 1170.0 19.0 1159.0 23.0 1155.0

ECS-B-2 1150.30 12.0 1138.3 18.0 1132.3 26.0 1124.3

ECS-B-3 1188.60 4.0 1184.6 6.0 1182.6 20.2 1168.4

ECS-B-4 1149.30 10.0 1139.3 16.0 1133.3 25.0 1124.3

ECS-B-5 1107.91 - - 12.0 1095.9 22.0 1085.9

ECS-B-6 1159.20 6.0 1153.2 - - 10.5 1148.7

ECS-B-7 1149.02 20.0 1129.0 26.0 1123.0 28.8 1120.2

ECS-B-8 1149.54 - - 10.0 1139.5 10.3 1139.2

ECS-B-9 1110.06 10.0 1100.1 7.0 1103.1 16.7 1093.4

ECS-B-10 1118.70 12.0 1106.7 16.0 1102.7 25.0 1093.7

ECS-B-11 1119.15 10.0 1109.2 - - 17.0 1102.2

ECS-B-12 1124.27 6.0 1118.3 - - 15.0 1109.3

ECS-B-13 1129.96 8.0 1122.0 12.0 1118.0 21.0 1109.0

ECS-B-14 1109.86 12.0 1097.9 16.0 1093.9 22.0 1087.9

ECS-B-15 1115.36 10.0 1105.4 14.0 1101.4 23.0 1092.4

ECS-B-16 1146.59 4.0 1142.6 6.0 1140.6 27.0 1119.6

ECS-B-17 1088.90 8.0 1080.9 12.0 1076.9 22.0 1066.9

ECS-B-18 1113.65 8.0 1105.7 - - 28.0 1085.7

ECS-B-19 1173.40 6.0 1167.4 16.0 1157.4 23.0 1150.4

ECS-B-20 1172.40 6.0 1166.4 - 23.2 1149.2

ECS-B-21 1173.93 8.0 1165.9 12.0 1161.9 14.8 1159.1

ECS-B-22 1158.79 12.0 1146.8 25.0 1133.8 37.5 1121.3

ECS-B-23 1160.20 4.0 1156.2 12.0 1148.2 15.0 1145.2

ECS-B-24 1209.53 4.0 1205.5 - - 14.0 1195.5

ECS-B-25 1166.43 - - 14.0 1152.4 25.2 1141.2

ECS-B-26 1149.83 12.0 1137.8 20.0 1129.8 25.2 1124.6

ECS-B-27 1150.43 6.0 1144.4 - - 31.5 1118.9

ECS-B-28 1163.92 10.0 1153.9 - 13.5 1150.4

ECS-B-29 1155.79 6.0 1149.8 8.0 1147.8 11.0 1144.8

ECS-B-30 1105.65 10.0 1095.7 12.0 1093.7 28.1 1077.6

ECS-B-31 1172.50 8.0 1164.5 - 27.0 1145.5

ECS-B-32 1182.80 6.0 1176.8 - 20.2 1162.6

ECS-B-33 1168.36 4.0 1164.4 13.0 1155.4 20.4 1148.0

ECS-B-34 1161.81 14.0 1147.8 18.0 1143.8 19.5 1142.3

ECS-B-35 1143.10 8.0 1135.1 - 16.5 1126.6

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 19

Approximate

Ground Elevation (ft)

Highly Weathered Rock (2) Weathered Rock (3) Top of Rock

(Auger Refusal)

Depth (ft)

Approximate Elevation (ft)

Depth (ft)

Approximate Elevation (ft)

Depth (ft)

Approximate Elevation (ft)

ECS-B-36 1126.74 8.0 1118.7 - 13.7 1113.0

ECS-B-37 1124.19 12.0 1112.2 18.0 1106.2 29.0 1095.2

ECS-B-38 1128.03 - - 10.0 1118.0 14.0 1114.0

ECS-B-58 1158.62 13.0 1145.6 - - 15.0 1143.6

ECS-B-59 1162.51 13.0 1149.5 - - 14.5 1148.0

ECS-B-60 1163.69 13.0 1150.7 - - 19.0 1144.7

ECS-B-61 1161.66 13.0 1148.7 - - 16.5 1145.2

ECS-B-62 1156.31 13.0 1143.3 - - 16.6 1139.7

ECS-B-63 1168.74 8.0 1160.7 - - 15.2 1153.5

ECS-B-64 1161.58 13.0 1148.6 - - 21.0 1140.6

ECS-B-65 1145.68 8.0 1137.7 - - 14.0 1131.7

ECS-PZ-1 1118.39 10.0 1108.4 16.0 1102.4 28.5 1089.9

ECS-PZ-2 1185.04 6.0 1179.0 8.0 1177.0 29.6 1155.4

ECS-PZ-3 1148.57 6.0 1142.6 20.0 1128.6 20.7 1127.9

ECS-PZ-4 1168.38 10.0 1158.4 18.0 1150.4 23.2 1145.2

ECS-PZ-5 1129.87 14.0 1115.9 20.0 1109.9 22.3 1107.6

ECS-PZ-6 1090.16 - 12.0 1078.2 28.0 1062.2

ECS-PZ-7 1131.97 10.0 1122.0 16.0 1116.0 17.0 1115.0

ECS-PZ-8 1099.47 8.0 1091.5 19.0 1080.5 24.1 1075.4

ECS-PZ-9 1115.33 4.0 1111.3 12.0 1103.3 20.0 1095.3

(1) First and Highest Occurrence

(2) N Value = greater than 50 bpf to 50 blows for 4 inches of penetration

(3) N Value = 50 blows for 3 inches of penetration and lower

Those materials classified as weathered rock are generally considered to be excavatable using standard excavation equipment. While considered excavatable, a significant amount of effort may be required to remove the materials, please refer to section 6.2.3 Rock/Weathered Rock Excavation for more information regarding the excavation of very hard materials.

3.5.3 Bedrock Summary

Each of the borings at the site was extended to auger refusal. Auger refusal was defined, for the purposes of this drilling operation, as those materials exhibiting consecutive penetration values in excess of 50 blows per 3-inch increment, unless actual refusal of the drilling tools was encountered. In shale formations, modern drilling equipment can actually advance several feet into the material that would be more properly classified as “rock”. Therefore, for consistency in evaluating the estimate top of rock, we selected a predefined relative strength indicator for

ECS Project No. 40:1736 Page 20 termination. Auger refusal was encountered, on average, at a depth 21.2 feet below the ground surface (bgs).

Coring operations were performed at Borings ECS-B-16 through B-21, B-24 through B-27, and B-58 through B-61 following auger refusal on bedrock. Each of the borings to be cored was scheduled to extend to 40 feet below auger refusal. Due to the weakly cemented nature of the shaley site bedrock, and intermixed soil seams within the near surface bedrock, actual coring depth ranged from 4 to 40 feet.

Based on visual observation of the recovered rock samples, the site is generally underlain by shale, and coal. The recovered samples generally ranged from soft to hard, with Very Poor to Fair

Rock Quality Designation (RQD). The recovery for each individual run ranged from 5 to 100 percent.

Unconfined compressive strength testing was not performed. Due to the closely laminated/fractured nature of the recovered samples and the presence of soil seams/soft rock, a suitable test specimen was not recovered. The following table summarizes the rock core data:

Table 3.5.3.1 – Rock Core Results

Approx.

Ground

Elevation (ft)

Run Start

Depth (ft)

Start Elevation

(ft)

End Depth

(ft)

End Elevation

(ft)

Core Recovery

RQD

Rock Quality

ECS-B-16 1146.59

1 7 1139.59 12 1134.59 36 25 Poor

2 12 1134.59 17 1129.59 68 0 Very Poor

3 17 1129.59 22 1124.59 45 0 Very Poor

4 22 1124.59 27 1119.59 50 0 Very Poor

5 27 1119.59 32 1114.59 43 0 Very Poor

ECS-B-17 1088.90

1 22 1066.9 27 1061.9…