Attachment_7_Geotechnical_Report_REV_1.pdf

REVISION NO. 1 - GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Pavement Rehabilitation of Route 209 National Park Service – Delaware Water Gap Recreation Area

MM 0.0 – MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg to Dingmans Ferry, Pennsylvania

Schnabel Reference #: 20C41043 November 19, 2020

DHM Design NPS DEWA Pavement Rehabilitation of Route 209

November 19, 2020 Page i Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 20C41043 ©2020 All Rights Reserved

REVISION NO. 1 - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

NPS DEWA PAVEMENT REHABILITATION OF ROUTE 209

EAST STROUDSBURG TO DINGMANS FERRY, PENNSYLVANIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND PAVEMENT EXPLORATION

3.1 Site Geology

3.2 Generalized Pavement Thicknesses

4.0 GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF PAVEMENT CONDITION

4.1 Visual Assessment of Pavement

4.2 Guardrails

4.3 Culverts

4.4 Bridges

5.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Pavement Repairs between MM 0.0 – 6.0

5.2 Pavement Repairs between MM 6.0 – 7.0

6.0 SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK

6.1 Compacted Fill Subgrades

6.2 Compacted Fill

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Site Grading and Earthwork

7.2 Engineering Services During Construction

8.0 GENERAL SPECIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS

9.0 LIMITATIONS

November 19, 2020 Page ii Schnabel Engineering, LLC

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2A: Approximate Test Boring Location Plan MM 0.0 – MM 1.0 Figure 2B: Approximate Test Boring Location Plan MM 1.0 – MM 2.0 Figure 2C: Approximate Test Boring Location Plan MM 2.0 – MM 3.0 Figure 2D: Approximate Test Boring Location Plan MM 3.0 – MM 4.0 Figure 2E: Approximate Test Boring Location Plan MM 4.0 – MM 5.0 Figure 2F: Approximate Test Boring Location Plan MM 5.0 – MM 6.0 Figure 2G: Approximate Test Boring Location Plan MM 6.0 – MM 7.0

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Field Exploration Data Appendix B: Pavement Visual Assessment Data

November 19, 2020 Page 1 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

Our proposal dated April 3, 2020, defines the scope of services for this project. The scope of services includes the following:

• Field exploration consisting of:

o Advancing 47 boreholes to pavement subgrade.

o Pavement coring at each location to characterize the existing asphalt condition and thickness.

o Performing a visual assessment of the pavement conditions along the roadway alignment. This is not a pavement condition assessment, but a general survey of existing pavement conditions to document areas of pavement distress.

• Preparation of a geotechnical engineering report using data gathered during the field exploration:

o Estimated pavement thickness and conditions within the area explored based on data collected in the field exploration.

o Recommended asphalt pavement sections and pavement overlay sections designed in accordance with AASHTO 1993 pavement design guidelines. The pavement design will be based on our field exploration, an assumed California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and assumed traffic loading.

o Earthwork recommendations for the construction of load-bearing fill including an assessment of on-site soils for use as fill, pavement subgrade preparation, and compac-tion criteria.

o Construction considerations related to the implementation of our recommendations.

November 19, 2020 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

A 7-mile section of Route 209, located within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA) in Pennsylvania, will be rehabilitated. The project limits start at the southern NPS boundary of Route 209, delineated with an NPS Mile Marker (MM) zero sign, and extends to Mile Marker 7.0. A Site Vicinity Map is included as Figure 1. This section of Route 209 runs north to south from East Stroudsburg (south) to Dingmans Ferry (north). The roadway is a two-lane highway, with one lane running in each direction.

The approximate width of the roadway from fog line to fog line (or shoulder to shoulder) is about 23 ft to 24 ft, and shoulder widths range between 1 ft and 4 ft. There are two bridges within this 7-mile section, approximately located at MM 1.3 and MM 4.8. The bridges are concrete, and joints are present at the interface from the bridge to the pavement. Some guardrails and culverts are also present intermittently along the roadway.

The road dips up and down along the seven miles, generally decreasing from about EL +436 (ft) at MM 0.0 to EL +373 (ft) at MM 7.0. Based on publically available information obtained from Google Earth, the elevations range between:

Mile Marker Range Existing Elevations Range (ft)

Incline/Decline of 5% or Greater Heading Northbound

0.0 – 1.0 EL + 436 to EL +363 ~ 6% Decline from MM 0.7 to MM 0.8

1.0 – 2.0 EL +358 to EL +432 ~ 5% to 6% Incline MM 1.4 to MM 1.5

2.0 – 3.0 EL + 432 to EL +352 ~ 5% Decline MM 2.0 to MM 2.2

3.0 – 4.0 EL +350 to EL +371 N/A

4.0 – 5.0 EL +384 to EL +360 N/A

5.0 – 6.0 EL +363 to EL +353 N/A

6.0 – 7.0 EL +353 to EL + 373 ~ 6% Incline NB from MM 6.3 to MM 6.4

The land to the east and west of the roadway is heavily vegetated and the Delaware River meanders along the east side, ranging between 100 ft to 1 mile from the roadway’s eastern edge. This section of Route 209 intersects Community Drive, Delaware Water Gap NRA, Creek Road, Bushkill Falls Road (traffic light present), Church Lane, Broadhead Road (twice), and Egypt Mills Road (twice). This section of the roadway also provides access to several private residence entrances, businesses, ranger stations, park/camping ground access roads, and hunting roads. Posted speed limits are 35 miles per hour (mph) and 45 mph; however, traffic frequently travels in excess of the posted speed limits.

Various signs of pavement distress are observable along the 7-mile section, varying from low to high severity. Distress was observed along shoulders and across both lanes. Details on the observed distress are provided in subsequent sections of this report.

We understand that rehabilitation of the pavement surface is expected to consist of mill and overlay of failing asphalt pavement, aggregate shoulder work and shoulder grading, full or partial depth patching (as necessary), the addition of geotechnical fabric, and striping and other pavement markings.

No historical information on past milling and overlay of pavement has been provided at this time. The above information was obtained from our visit to the site, information shared by the A/E team, and from publically available resources (i.e., Google Earth).

November 19, 2020 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

3.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND PAVEMENT EXPLORATION

3.1 Site Geology

Based on a review of existing geologic maps, including the Surficial Geologic Map of Part of the Lake Maskenozha Quadrangle, Sussex County, New Jersey, and Pike County, PA (Ron W Witte, 2014), Route 209 - in the area of this study - is underlain by Quaternary age post-glacial deposits and Wisconsinan age glacial deposits. Post-glacial deposits consist of alluvium, colluvium, alluvial fan deposits, and stream deposits. Glacial deposits are occasionally found at surface grades or underlie the post-glacial deposits and consist of valley train and meltwater deposits, as well as till material.

Per NPS’s request, borings did not extend beyond the subbase below the asphalt and/or concrete pavement. Visually, our engineer identified the soil below the subbase as consisting predominately of clayey gravel and silty gravel. Given the limited visibility of the subgrade within the borehole, no assessment of whether or not the material was natural or man-made fill could be made.

3.2 Generalized Pavement Thicknesses

Our subcontractor, Connelly and Drilling Associates, cored pavement and advanced a split-spoon sampler through pavement subbase material at 47 test boring locations under our observation between July 21, 2020, and July 24, 2020. Appendix A includes specific observations, remarks, and logs for the borings. Figures 2A through 2G, included at the end of this report, indicate the approximate test boring locations. We will retain pavement cores up to 45 days beyond the issuance of this report, unless you request other disposition. It should be noted that the majority of the pavement cores/borings were taken about 7 ft to 8 ft off of the centerline to avoid occupying both lanes and the presence of overhead electric lines.

The tables below summarize the asphalt, concrete (if present) and subbase thicknesses encountered along each mile of the roadway at the specific boring/pavement core locations. Borings are listed in the tables traveling along each one-mile section from south to north. General comments are also provided under each table. Please note that thicknesses may vary across the site.

Table 3.1: Encountered Existing Pavement Thicknesses from MM 0.0 to MM 1.0 Test Boring /

Northbound (NB) or Southbound (SB)

Distance from Center

Line (ft)

Asphalt Thickness (inches)

Concrete Thickness (inches)

Subbase Thickness (inches)

B-1 (NB) 8 4.5 10 5

B-2 (SB) 7 6.5 8 2

B-9 (SB) 7 9 8 7

B-3 (SB) 6.75 12 7 5

B-4 (NB) 7 11 0 15

Relatively similar asphalt, concrete, and subbase thicknesses were recorded in borings B-1 and B-2 (approximately MM 0.0 and MM 0.23). Thicknesses increased at boring B-9 (MM 0.5) and variable thicknesses of asphalt, concrete and subbase were encountered at borings B-3 and B-4 (MM 0.71 and MM 0.89). Note that no concrete was encountered at boring B-4.

November 19, 2020 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Table 3.2: Encountered Existing Pavement Thicknesses from MM 1.0 to MM 2.0 Test Boring /

Northbound (NB) or Southbound (SB)

Distance from Center

Line (ft)

Asphalt Thickness (inches)

Concrete Thickness (inches)

Subbase Thickness (inches)

B-5 (SB) 7.5 5 9.5 6

B-6 (SB) 9.7 5.5 8 5

B-10 (SB) 8 5.5 8 7

B-7 (NB) 9 8 8 13

B-8 (NB) 7.5 10 8.5 5

Relatively similar asphalt, concrete, and subbase thicknesses were recorded in borings B-5, B-6, and B- 10 (approximately MM 1.14 to MM 1.46). The relatively similar concrete thickness and variable asphalt and subbase thicknesses were encountered in borings B-7 (MM 1.58) and B-8 (MM 1.81).

Table 3.3: Encountered Existing Pavement Thicknesses from MM 2.0 to MM 3.0

Test Boring / Northbound (NB) or

Southbound (SB)

Distance from Center

Line (ft)

Asphalt Thickness (inches)

Concrete Thickness (inches)

Subbase Thickness (inches)

B-18 (SB) 7.5 8.5 9.5 5

B-11 (NB) 7.5 11 7 14

B-12 (SB) 7 10.5 8.5 5

B-13 (SB) 10 10 0 7

B-14 (SB) 8.25 10.5 9.5 6

Relatively similar asphalt, concrete, and subbase thicknesses were recorded in borings B-8 and B-18 (approximately MM 1.81 and MM 2.06). Generally, similar asphalt thickness and varying concrete and subbase thicknesses were encountered at borings B-11 through B-14 (MM 2.23 to MM 2.86). Please note that boring B-13 (MM 2.68) was located 10 ft off of the centerline, and no concrete thickness was encountered. Generally, concrete extended from the centerline to a distance between 8.5 ft to 10 ft into each travel lane. This distance is based solely on borings advanced during this study and may vary at other locations across the roadway.

November 19, 2020 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Table 3.4: Encountered Existing Pavement Thicknesses from MM 3.0 to MM 4.0 Test Boring /

Northbound (NB) or Southbound (SB)

Distance from Center

Line (ft)

Asphalt Thickness (inches)

Concrete Thickness (inches)

Subbase Thickness (inches)

B-19 (SB) 6.5 11 9 6

B-15 (NB) 7 8.5 8.5 14

B-16 (SB) 8 8.5 8.5 8

B-20 (NB) 7.5 11 9 16

B-17 (SB) 6.5 10 9.5 6

B-21 (SB) 10 12 0 6

Relatively similar asphalt, concrete, and subbase thicknesses were recorded in borings B-14 and at B-19 (approximately MM 2.86 and MM 3.0). Generally varying thicknesses of asphalt and subbase was encountered in borings B-15, B-16, B-20, and B-17 (MM 3.17 to MM 3.71), while the concrete thickness was fairly consistent at these locations. Please note that boring B-21 (MM 3.81) was located 10 ft off of the centerline, and no concrete thickness was encountered.

Table 3.5: Encountered Existing Pavement Thicknesses from MM 4.0 to MM 5.0

Northbound (NB) or Southbound (SB)

Distance from Center

Line (ft)

Asphalt Thickness (inches)

Concrete Thickness (inches)

Subbase Thickness (inches)

B-44 (NB) 7 10.5 8.5 5

B-39 (NB) 7.5 9.5 7.5 12

B-22 (SB) 7 12 9 8

B-23 (NB) 7.5 10.5 8.5 15

B-24 (SB) 8 10.5 9.5 5

B-25 (NB) 7 10.25 8.5 9

B-26 (SB) 7 10 9 7

B-40 (NB) 8 9 9 12

B-27 (SB) 10.5 17.5 0 7

B-28 (NB)* 7.5 41.5 -- --

*Cored to a depth of 29 inches, split spoon driven to a depth of 41.5 inches and refused. Coring equipment could not extend to 41.5 inches to core material spoon refused on. Concrete possible below the asphalt.

Generally varying thicknesses of asphalt and subbase was encountered in borings B-44, B-39, B-22, B- 23, B-24, B-25, B-26, and B-40 (MM 4.0 to MM 4.69), while the concrete thickness was fairly consistent at these locations. Please note that boring B-27 (MM 4.74) was located 10.5 ft off of the centerline, and no concrete thickness was encountered. Borings B-27 (MM 4.74) and B-28 (MM 4.85) which were closest to the bridge located at MM 4.8. Boring B-27 was about 430 ft south of the bridge and B-28 was 75 ft north of the bridge.

November 19, 2020 Page 6 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Table 3.6: Encountered Existing Pavement Thicknesses from MM 5.0 to MM 6.0 Test Boring /

Northbound (NB) or Southbound (SB)

Distance from Center

Line (ft)

Asphalt Thickness (inches)

Concrete Thickness (inches)

Subbase Thickness (inches)

B-29 (NB) 7 8.5 8.5 16

B-41 (SB) 7.5 7.5 8.75 5

B-30 (NB) 6.5 8 9.5 17

B-45 (NB) 7.5 7.5 8.75 5

Limited borings were advanced from MM 5.0 to MM 6.0 due to eagles nesting in the area, designating the majority of the mile as a drilling free zone. Asphalt and concrete thicknesses were fairly uniform at the above noted boring locations. However, subbase thickness appears to vary in northbound and southbound lanes in this portion of the roadway (borings advanced between MM 5.81 and MM 5.95).

Table 3.7: Encountered Existing Pavement Thicknesses from MM 6.0 to MM 7.0

Northbound (NB) or Southbound (SB)

Distance from Center

Line (ft)

Asphalt Thickness (inches)

Concrete Thickness (inches)

Subbase Thickness (inches)

B-31 (SB) 8 8.5 9 9

B-32 (NB) 7.5 6.5 9 14

B-33 (SB) 7 7 9.5 11

B-34 (NB) 7.5 6.5 8.25 17

B-35 (SB) 8.5 7 9 22

B-36 (NB) 10.25 10 0 19

B-42 (SB) 8.5 8 8.5 21

B-37 (NB) 7.5 8.5 8.5 20

B-46 (NB) 7.5 8 9 18

B-38 (SB) 8 6.5 9 6

B-43 (NB) 8 9 8.75 15

B-47 (SB) 10.5 10 0 17

Generally varying thicknesses of asphalt and subbase was encountered in borings advanced within this mile (MM 6.0 – MM 7.0), while the concrete thickness was fairly consistent at these locations. Please note that boring B-36 (MM 6.65) and B-47 (MM 7.0) were located 10.25 ft and 10.5 ft off of the centerline, respectively, and no concrete thickness was encountered.

November 19, 2020 Page 7 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

4.0 GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF PAVEMENT CONDITION

4.1 Visual Assessment of Pavement

Our engineer, Mr. Mahmoud Khachan, walked the roadway and generally documented the roadway condition through note-taking and photographs. This general visual assessment was performed between July 19, 2020, and July 24, 2020. Please note that this visual assessment of the pavement is not a pavement condition assessment, but rather a general survey of existing pavement conditions where areas of pavement distress were observed.

Detailed tables of pavement conditions observed along the roadways are included in Appendix B. The table below summarizes the overall pavement condition per mile:

Table 4.1: Overall Existing Pavement Condition per Mile

Mile General Observed Existing Pavement Conditions

MM 0.0 – MM 1.0 Low to Medium Severity

MM 1.0 – MM 2.0 Low to Medium Severity

MM 2.0 – MM 3.0 Low to Medium Severity

MM 3.0 – MM 4.0 Low to Medium Severity

MM 4.0 – MM 5.0 Medium Severity

MM 5.0 – MM 6.0 Medium Severity

MM 6.0 – MM 7.0 Medium to High Severity

4.2 Guardrails

Pursuant to your request, our engineer attempted to document the approximate locations of the guardrails from MM 0.0 to MM 7.0. The tables below include the approximate recorded latitude and longitude of the observed guardrails. Please note that there is a possibility that not all guardrails were observed/recorded and the tables below should not be considered as all-inclusive. The accuracy of the utilized GPS hand-held equipment is about 20 ft +/- to 50 ft +/- due to elevation changes and satellite coverage.

November 19, 2020 Page 8 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Table 4.2: Observed Approximate Locations of Guardrails – Northbound (MM 0.0 to MM 7.0)

No.

Approximate Start Approximate End

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude 1 N 41° 4' 59.5" W 75° 0' 48.2" N 41° 5' 9.1" W 75° 0' 28.1"

2 N 41° 5' 28.3" W 75° 0' 11.8" N 41° 5' 31.0" W 75° 0' 9.5"

3 N 41° 5' 44.8" W 74° 59' 58.5" N 41° 5' 47.0" W 74° 59' 56.0"

4 N 41° 5' 49.8" W 74° 59' 51.6" N 41° 5' 51.7" W 74° 59' 48.4"

5 N 41° 5' 55.2" W 74° 59' 41.5" N 41° 5' 57.8" W 74° 59' 35.4"

6 N 41° 5' 58.9" W 74° 59' 33.0" N 41° 6' 0.0" W 74° 59' 31.4"

7 N 41° 6' 1.5" W 74° 59' 29.2" N 41° 6' 2.5" W 74° 59' 28.3"

8 N 41° 6' 18.7" W 74° 59' 12.7" N 41° 6' 25.6" W 74° 59' 6.0"

9 N 41° 6' 27.3" W 74° 59' 4.6" N 41° 6' 45.3" W 74° 58' 45.5"

10 N 41° 6' 45.4" W 74° 58' 44.5" N 41° 6' 51.5" W 74° 58' 37.1"

11 N 41° 6' 57.1" W 74° 58' 31.1" N 41° 7' 3.4" W 74° 58' 15.2"

12 N 41° 7' 7.2" W 74° 58' 6.0" N 41° 7' 8.3" W 74° 58' 3.8"

13 N 41° 7' 9.4" W 74° 58' 1.3" N 41° 7' 14.6" W 74° 57' 42.3"

14 N 41° 7' 28.2" W 74° 57' 14.3" N 41° 7' 32.1" W 74° 57' 9.8"

15 N 41° 8' 4.7" W 74° 56' 18.7" N 41° 8' 8.9" W 74° 56' 12.7"

16 N 41° 8' 14.6" W 74° 56' 1.8" N 41° 8' 16.4" W 74° 55' 57.7"

Table 4.3: Observed Approximate Locations of Guardrails – Southbound (MM 7.0 to MM 0.0)

No.

Approximate Start Approximate End

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude

1 N 41° 7' 31.9" W 74° 57' 10.3" N 41° 7' 28.2" W 74° 57' 14.9"

2 N 41° 7' 8.7" W 74° 58' 3.7" N 41° 7' 7.6" W 74° 58' 6.4"

3 N 41° 6' 19.9" W 74° 59' 12.0" N 41° 6' 15.1" W 74° 59' 16.4"

4 N 41° 6' 3.1" W 74° 59' 28.4" N 41° 6' 1.9" W 74° 59' 29.2"

5 N 41° 5' 51.8" W 74° 59' 50.5" N 41° 5' 49.4" W 74° 59' 53.2"

6 N 41° 5' 40.8" W 75° 0' 2.3" N 41° 5' 39.4" W 74° 0' 3.7"

7 N 41° 5' 30.7" W 75° 0' 10.3" N 41° 5' 27.4" W 75° 0' 13.1"

8 N 41° 5' 14.9" W 75° 0' 24.7" N 41° 5' 13.1" W 75° 0' 26.0"

9 N 41° 5' 9.2" W 75° 0' 28.4" N 41° 5' 7.5" W 75° 0' 30.5"

10 N 41° 5' 0.9" W 75° 0' 45.3" N 41° 4' 59.8" W 75° 0' 47.5"

November 19, 2020 Page 9 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Several photographs of guardrails are included in Appendix B. It should be noted that documentation of guardrail locations was outside of our scope and we attempted our best to document them where/when we could.

4.3 Culverts

Also, pursuant to your request, our engineer attempted to count the number of culverts using the documents prepared by Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers (Geotechnical Boring Location Exhibit Sheets 1 through 4, transmitted via email on July 16, 2020), and visible markers. Visible markers included yellow posts or yellow and black posts located along the shoulder of the roadway which indicated the presence of a culvert. Our engineer counted 36 posts and observed two drains (without posts), a total of 38 culverts. The majority of the culvert posts were observed on the southbound side of the roadway.

More culverts may be present along the roadway; however, due to guardrail restrictions and heavily vegetated areas they may not have been observed. A few culvert marker locations were documented using our hand-held GPS device, summarized in the table below, and a few representative pictures are included in Appendix B.

Table 4.4: Observed Approximate Locations of Select Culverts Northbound (NB) / Southbound (SB) Latitude Longitude

SB N 41° 5' 5.4" W 75° 0' 34.9"

SB N 41° 7' 41.8" W 74° 56' 59.0"

SB N 41° 6' 52.6" W 74° 58' 36.7"

SB N 41° 6' 50.3" W 74° 58' 39.0"

SB N 41° 8' 47.2" W 74° 55' 26.2"

SB N 41° 5' 53.5" W 74° 59' 45.8"

SB N 41° 7' 55.3" W 74° 56' 37.5"

SB N 41° 8' 29.2" W 74° 55' 44.2"

NB N 41° 7' 9.0" W 74° 58' 2.1"

NB N 41° 5' 18.4" W 75° 0' 21.1"

NB N 41°05'13.2" W 75° 0' 25.5"

NB N 41°05'13.2" W 75° 0' 25.5"

It should be noted that this item was outside of our scope and we attempted our best to document the conditions, where/when we could.

4.4 Bridges

Additionally, as requested, our engineer took photographs of the two bridges. These photographs are included in Appendix B.

November 19, 2020 Page 10 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

5.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Pavement Repairs between MM 0.0 – 6.0

The roadway between MM 0.0 and MM 6.0 exhibited low to medium severity signs of distress, predominately consisting of potholes, traverse cracking, longitudinal cracking, alligator cracking, block cracking, and raveling. Portions of the roadway have been patched, dates of past patching efforts are not available. Pavement cores indicated that some portions of the roadway may have been previously milled and/or an asphalt overlay(s) may have been placed.

Since this project is a rehabilitation project and the purpose is not to improve the pavement design life but to improve the quality and aesthetics by rehabilitating the pavements to a “like new” condition, mill and replacement coupled with full patching is considered suitable for the roadway between MM 0.0 and MM 6.0.

Based on visual observation, we estimate that 20 percent to 40 percent of the sections will need to be rehabilitated as denoted in the table below:

Mile Marker Range

Visual Observed Severity

Rough Estimate of Observed Pavement Requiring

Rehabilitation (%) MM 0.0 – 1.0 Low to Medium 25 MM 1.0 – 2.0 Low to Medium 20 MM 2.0 – 3.0 Low to Medium 30 MM 3.0 – 4.0 Low to Medium 40 MM 4.0 – 5.0 Medium 30 MM 5.0 – 6.0 Medium 25

We observed delamination between the asphalt surface course and the asphalt base course, and the presence of previous overlays in multiple pavement cores. Therefore, we recommend a milling depth of 2.5-inches. This depth may vary depending on the actual conditions encountered.

We expect that the design life of this option to be about 5 years depending on the actual stiffness of the subgrades beneath the pavements and the actual traffic volumes and wheel loads on the pavements.

As noted above, we observed some surficial pavement distresses consisting mostly of cracking, potholes, and raveling. A visual evaluation (patching survey) of the entire pavement must be performed to identify the areas for partial or full-depth patching prior to milling. Milling should be performed after the partial or full-depth patching is completed. The proposed milling depths will only remove surficial cracks. Following milling, a selective patching program to repair any deeper damage pavements that are still evident should again be performed.

It should be noted that there is a risk that some areas of the pavements may deteriorate more rapidly than others. We recommend that a budget for maintenance and repairs should be established to maintain the pavements in acceptable service conditions until the future pavement repairs are performed.

November 19, 2020 Page 11 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

5.2 Pavement Repairs between MM 6.0 – 7.0

Given the medium to high severity distress observed from MM 6.0 to 7.0, we recommend the full replacement of the asphalt pavement. Please note that we understand that due to project cost restrictions full replacement of the entire mile may not be feasible. Consideration can be given to excluding full replacement in some areas where low to medium range severity was observed. With this consideration in mind, we estimate that 75 percent of the mile should undergo full asphalt replacement.

Sections where complete replacement are not required should be selected once a formal pavement condition assessment has been conducted, as opposed to the general survey of existing pavement conditions included in this scope work.

The concrete pavement below the asphalt can remain in place. Portions of the pavement where no concrete is present may require additional subbase thickness to be added to reach the average thickness considered in our recommendations below.

The average concrete thickness for this mile is 8.5 inches and the average subbase thickness is 15 inches, these values exclude borings located where no concrete was present.

With updated input from NPS, we have considered the average daily traffic (ADT) volume to consist of 4,600 vehicles with 20 percent truck traffic. The mix of truck traffic was not provided. For our analysis and design, we have considered 3,450 passenger vehicles, 5 percent of the truck traffic to consist of semi-tractor trailers (230 tractor trailers), and the remaining 15 percent to consist of UPS-style trucks (690 UPS-style trucks). Please note that if more detailed truck traffic is available, we request that it be provided to us for consideration in the design. We have considered a design life of 5 years for this option, and a traffic growth rate of 5 percent. We also understand that the maximum gross vehicle weight allowed on the roadway is 80,000 pounds. We have also assumed a California Bearing Ratio of 5 in areas where no concrete is present. Please note that actual CBR testing should be performed either before or during construction to adjust pavement section thicknesses as needed.

• Considering the above loading, the average concrete thickness of 8.5 inches, and average subbase thickness of 15 inches, we recommend hot mix asphalt (HMA) thickness of 5.5 inches.

• In areas where no concrete is present, the existing subbase thickness was about 18 inches thick.

In these areas, the hot mix asphalt (HMA) should be 7.5 inches. The table below provides the recommended HMA thicknesses, should less than 18 inches of subbase thickness be encountered:

Existing Subbase Thickness (inches)

Hot Mix Asphalt Thickness Recommended (inches)

8 9.0 12 8.5 15 8.0 18 7.5

November 19, 2020 Page 12 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Adequate control of surface drainage will be a very important consideration for the overall performance of this pavement design. The area surrounding pavements should be graded to direct surface water away from paved areas.

November 19, 2020 Page 13 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

6.0 SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK

Recommendations for compacted fill subgrade preparation, fill soil requirements, placement, and compaction criteria, are presented in subsequent sections.

6.1 Compacted Fill Subgrades

The Geotechnical Engineer should evaluate the suitability of fill subgrades. To evaluate the subgrade suitability for support of the compacted structural fill prior to any undercutting or initiation of fill placement, the stripped subgrades should be proofrolled with a loaded dump truck. Areas that exhibit excessive pumping, weaving, or rutting should be scarified, dried, and recompacted, and a geotextile can be placed if recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Undercut and replacement with compacted structural fill is also feasible, if recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Subgrade evaluation techniques complementary to proofrolling could include a combination of probing with a penetrometer, drilling hand augers, and/or observing test pits. The above is in general accordance with PennDOT Section 210 – Subgrade, Specifications Publication 408/2020. If conflicting recommendations are interpreted between the recommendations included herein and the Specifications Publication 408/2020, the PennDOT Specifications Publication 408/2020 should be followed. After approval of the subgrade, in accordance with Penn DOT Section 210 of Specifications Publication 408/2020, place a Class 4, Type A geotextile over the completed subgrade for the entire lane width 8 ft or greater before placing the subbase.

Undercut volumes should be evaluated by cross-sectioning. Other methods of calculating volumes of undercut, such as counting trucks, are less accurate and generally result in additional expense. If truck counts are used, we recommend the method of payment be in accordance with PennDOT Road and Bridge Specifications.

Compacted structural fill subgrades should be kept free of ponded water. If springs or other flowing water is present at the compacted structural fill subgrade level, the Contractor should direct water to discharge beyond the fill limits. Recommendations for discharging springs should be provided by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Compacted structural fill subgrades should be free of snow, ice, and frozen soils. If snow, ice, or frozen soils are present at subgrade levels, these materials should be removed as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Compacted structural fill subgrades should not be steeper than about 4H:1V. If steeper slopes are present, subgrades should be benched to permit the placement of horizontal lifts of fill.

Pavement subgrades should meet the requirements outlined in Section 210 of PennDOT Specifications Publication 408/2020.

6.2 Compacted Fill

Compacted structural fill in pavement areas should be placed in accordance with the specifications outlined in Section 206 of PennDOT Specifications Publication 408/2020.

Successful re-use of the excavated, on-site soils as compacted structural fill will depend on their natural moisture contents during excavation. Scarifying and drying of soils may be necessary to achieve the

November 19, 2020 Page 14 Schnabel Engineering, LLC recommended compaction. Drying of these soils will likely result in some delays, and may not be possible during cooler, wetter weather. We recommend that the earthwork be performed during the warmer, drier times of the year.

November 19, 2020 Page 15 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Site Grading and Earthwork

Please refer to PennDOT Specifications Publication 408/2020

7.2 Engineering Services During Construction

The engineering recommendations provided in this report are based on the information obtained from the field exploration. However, conditions on the site may vary between the discrete locations observed at the time of our field exploration. The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become evident until during construction.

To account for this variability, we should provide professional observation and testing of field conditions revealed during construction as an extension of our engineering services. These services will also help in evaluating the Contractor's conformance with the plans and specifications.

November 19, 2020 Page 16 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

8.0 GENERAL SPECIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS

An allowance should be established to account for possible additional costs that may be required to construct earthwork and pavements as recommended in this report. Additional costs may be incurred for a variety of reasons including variation of soil between borings, greater than anticipated unsuitable soils, need for borrow fill material, wet on-site soils, obstructions, rock excavation, temporary dewatering, etc.

The project specifications should indicate the Contractor's responsibility for providing adequate site drainage during construction. Inadequate drainage will most likely lead to disturbance of soils by construction traffic and increased volume of undercut.

This report may be made available to prospective bidders for informational purposes. We recommend that the project specifications contain the following statement:

Schnabel Engineering, LLC has prepared this geotechnical engineering report for this project.

This report is for informational purposes only and is not part of the contract documents. The opinions expressed represent the Geotechnical Engineer’s interpretation of the field conditions, tests, and the results of analyses performed. Should the data contained in this report not be adequate for the Contractor's purposes, the Contractor may make, before bidding, independent exploration, tests, and analyses. This report may be examined by bidders at the office of the Owner, or copies may be obtained from the Owner at a nominal charge.

Additional data and reports prepared by others that could have an impact upon the Contractor's bid should also be made available to prospective bidders for informational purposes.

November 19, 2020 Page 17 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

9.0 LIMITATIONS

We based the analyses and recommendations submitted in this report on the information revealed by our exploration. We attempted to provide for normal contingencies, but the possibility remains that unexpected conditions may be encountered during construction.

This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of this site and to assist in the design of the project.

It is intended for use concerning this specific project. We based our recommendations on information on the site and proposed construction as described in this report. Substantial changes in loads, locations, or grades should be brought to our attention so we can modify our recommendations as needed. We would appreciate an opportunity to review the plans and specifications as they pertain to the recommendations contained in this report, and to submit our comments to you based on this review.

We have endeavored to complete the services identified herein in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality and under similar conditions as this project. No other representation, express or implied, is included or intended, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report or other instrument of service.

November 19, 2020 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map

Figure 2A: Approximate Boring Location Plan MM 0.0 – MM 1.0 Figure 2B: Approximate Boring Location Plan MM 1.0 – MM 2.0 Figure 2C: Approximate Boring Location Plan MM 2.0 – MM 3.0 Figure 2D: Approximate Boring Location Plan MM 3.0 – MM 4.0 Figure 2E: Approximate Boring Location Plan MM 4.0 – MM 5.0 Figure 2F: Approximate Boring Location Plan MM 5.0 – MM 6.0 Figure 2G: Approximate Boring Location Plan MM 6.0 – MM 7.0

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION DATA

Field Exploration Procedures and General Notes for Logs (1 sheet) Boring Logs, B-1 through B-47 (47 sheets) Pavement Core Photo Logs (25 sheets)

FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND GENERAL

NOTES FOR LOGS

Pavement Cores / Advancement of Split Spoon Sampler

A 4-inch O.D. core bit was attached to the drill rig to obtain the asphalt and concrete core. A split spoon was advanced through the subbase material.

Boring Locations and Elevations

Boring locations were approximately staked by Schnabel personnel in the field using GPS equipment and latitude and longitudes pulled from Google Earth. Approximate boring locations are shown on Figures 2A through 2G. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were estimated from Google Earth and are indicated on the boring logs. Locations and elevations should be considered no more accurate than the methods used to determine them.

Test Boring Logs

The logs and related information depict field conditions only at the specific locations and at the particular time when drilled or excavated. Pavement conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these locations.

435.6

434.8

434.4

0.4

1.2

1.6

Bottom of Boring at 1.6 ft.

Core location 8 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 4.5 inches

Concrete; 10 inches

Subbase; 5 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 1.6 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 436± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/21/20 Finished: 7/21/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-1

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4 /2

423.5

422.8

422.6

0.5

1.2

1.4

Bottom of Boring at 1.4 ft.

Core location 7 ft from center line.

Split spoon sampler refusal at 1.4 ft.

Asphalt; 6.5 inches

Concrete; 8 inches

Subbase; 2 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 1.4 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 424± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/24/20 Finished: 7/24/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-2

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

411.0

410.4

410.0

1.0

1.6

2.0

Bottom of Boring at 2.0 ft.

Core location 6.75 ft from center line.

Split spoon sampler refusal at 2.0 ft.

Asphalt; 12 inches

Concrete; 7 inches

Subbase; 5 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 2.0 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 412± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/24/20 Finished: 7/24/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-3

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

369.1

367.8

0.9

2.2

Bottom of Boring at 2.2 ft.

Core location 7 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 11 inches

Subbase; 15 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 2.2 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 370± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/21/20 Finished: 7/21/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-4

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

356.6

355.8

355.3

0.4

1.2

1.7

Bottom of Boring at 1.7 ft.

Core location 7.5 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 5 inches

Concrete; 9.5 inches

Subbase; 6 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 1.7 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 357± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/24/00 Finished: 7/24/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-5

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

362.5

361.9

361.5

0.5

1.1

1.5

Bottom of Boring at 1.5 ft.

Core location 9.7 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 5.5 inches

Concrete; 8 inches

Subbase; 5 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 1.5 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 363± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/24/20 Finished: 7/24/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-6

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

395.3

394.7

393.6

0.7

1.3

2.4

Bottom of Boring at 2.4 ft.

Core location was offset 3 ft east of original location. Drill rig could not core through steel rebar. Asphalt thickness at original location was

8.5 inches thick.

Final core location at 9 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 8 inches

Concrete; 8 inches

Subbase; 13 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 2.4 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 396± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/21/20 Finished: 7/21/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-7

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

413.2

412.5

412.0

0.8

1.5

2.0

Bottom of Boring at 2.0 ft.

Core location 7.5 ft from center line.

Split spoon sampler refusal at 2.0 ft.

Asphalt; 10 inches

Concrete; 8.5 inches

Subbase; 5 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 2.0 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 414± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/21/20 Finished: 7/21/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-8

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

417.3

416.6

416.0

0.8

1.4

2.0

Bottom of Boring at 2.0 ft.

Core location 7 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 9 inches

Concrete; 8 inches

Subbase; 7 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 2.0 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 418± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/24/20 Finished: 7/24/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-9

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

388.5

387.9

387.3

0.5

1.1

1.7

Bottom of Boring at 1.7 ft.

Core location 8 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 5.5 inches

Concrete; 8 inches

Subbase; 7 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 1.7 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 389± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/24/20 Finished: 7/24/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-10

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

401.1

400.5

399.3

0.9

1.5

2.7

Bottom of Boring at 2.7 ft.

Core location 7.5 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 11 inches

Concrete; 7 inches

Subbase; 14 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 2.7 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 402± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/21/20 Finished: 7/21/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-11

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

368.1

367.4

367.0

0.9

1.6

2.0

Bottom of Boring at 2.0 ft.

Core location 7 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 10.5 inches

Concrete; 8.5 inches

Subbase; 5 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 2.0 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 369± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/24/20 Finished: 7/24/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-12

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

358.2

357.6

0.8

1.4

Bottom of Boring at 1.4 ft.

Core location 10 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 10 inches

Subbase; 7 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 1.4 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 359± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/23/20 Finished: 7/23/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-13

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

354.1

353.3

352.8

0.9

1.7

2.2

Bottom of Boring at 2.2 ft.

Core location 8.25 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 10.5 inches

Concrete; 9.5 inches

Subbase; 6 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 2.2 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 355± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/23/20 Finished: 7/23/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-14

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

357.3

355.4

0.7

1.4

2.6

Bottom of Boring at 2.6 ft.

Core location at 7 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 8.5 inches

Concrete; 8.5 inches

Subbase; 14 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 2.6 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 358± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/21/20 Finished: 7/21/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-15

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

352.3

351.6

350.9

0.7

1.4

2.1

Bottom of Boring at 2.1 ft.

Core location at 8 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 8.5 inches

Concrete; 8.5 inches

Subbase; 8 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 2.1 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 353± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/23/20 Finished: 7/23/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-16

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

355.2

354.4

353.9

0.8

1.6

2.1

Bottom of Boring at 2.1 ft.

Core location at 6.5 ft from center line.

Asphalt; 10 inches

Concrete; 9.5 inches

Subbase; 6 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M. Khachan

Total Depth: 2.1 ft

Method:

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (Truck)

Ground Surface Elevation: 356± (ft)

Contractor: Connelly and Associates, Inc.

Frederick, Maryland

Contractor Foreman: Josh Lewis

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 7/23/20 Finished: 7/23/20

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS DEWA Pavement Rehab of Route 209

MM 0.0 - MM 7.0

East Stroudsburg and Dingmans Ferry, PA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 20C41043 Sheet: 1 of 1

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

B-17

REMARKS

SAMPLING

DEPTH

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

P A

V E

M E

N T

B O

R

IN

G S

_2 0C

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

/4

422.3

421.5

421.1

0.7

1.5

1.9

Bottom of Boring at 1.9 ft.

Core location 7.5 ft from center line.

Split spoon sampler refusal at 1.9 ft.

Asphalt; 8.5 inches

Concrete; 9.5 inches

Subbase; 5 inches

Core

Split spoon

Schnabel Representative: M.