B08_Attach_5_COWP_-_Pavement_Investigation___Analysis_Report.pdf

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT

Cowpens National Battlefield (COWP) NPS Contract No. 140P2022D0002 NPS Task Order No. 140P2025F0167

PMIS 334929

July 28, 2025

Table of Contents

1.0 Project Description

2.0 Scope of Work – Predesign (PD) Phase

2.1 Review of RIP Data

2.2 Review of FY19 Pavement Preservation Design Scoping Report for COWP

2.3 On-Site Scoping

3.0 Scope of Work – Design Development (DD) Phase

3.1 70% Design Site Visit

3.2 Subsurface Sampling and Investigation

3.3 Review of Available Traffic Data

3.4 Construction Summary Estimate

3.5 Construction Schedule Summary

4.0 Pavement Analysis, Findings, and Recommendations

Appendix A – Project Location

Appendix B – Scoping Site Visit Field Notes and Photos

Appendix C1 – Subsurface Sampling and Geotechnical Testing Data

Appendix C2 – Material Sampling Photo Documentation Log

Appendix C3 – Laboratory Test Results of Unbound Materials

Appendix D – Traffic Data for Pavement Design

Appendix E – AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Calculations

Appendix F – Construction Cost Estimate Summary

Appendix G – Construction Schedule Summary

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 3 | P a g e

1.0 Project Description

National Park System (NPS) retained AECOM Services, Inc. (AECOM) to provide engineering services related to pavement preservation at multiple parks in South Carolina. Preservation is the strategy designed to maintain and restore the overall condition of relatively new pavements that are in good to fair condition (distress severity and extent are low/moderate) by protecting them from water intrusion and limiting oxidation using treatments such as crack seal, slurry seal, chip seal, micro surfacing, and thin overlays. Pavement preservation treatments generally can extend the life of pavement in good or fair condition by 5-7 years and delay more expensive and intrusive rehabilitation activities.

As outlined in the project Scope of Services, the goal is to evaluate selected paved roads and parking areas at Cowpens National Battlefield (COWP) and identify suitable pavement preservation or rehabilitation treatments. AECOM conducted pre-design activities, including an on-site scoping site visit and review of available project documents, to perform an initial pavement assessment.

The preliminary findings were documented in a Pavement Analysis Report dated February 22, 2025.

This report supplements the February 2025 pavement analysis by incorporating findings from additional pavement investigations and analyses conducted by AECOM during the Design Development (DD) phase. It presents the final recommendations for pavement treatment options for the designated roads and parking areas at COWP, in accordance with Chapter 11 of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Project Design and Development Manual.

To ensure continuity and completeness in documenting the pavement evaluation efforts and findings, the activities conducted during the predesign (PD) phase are discussed in Section 2 of this report, while the DD phase activities are documented in Section 3. Section 4 contains the findings and recommendations. The specific roadway and parking lot sections are listed in Table 1, and the project location is provided in Appendix A.

2.0 Scope of Work – Predesign (PD) Phase

AECOM performed the following activities at COWP during the predesign phase:

2.1 Review of RIP Data

NPS provided AECOM with the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Road Inventory Program (RIP) report for COWP (Cycle 6 Final Report – Road Inventory and Condition Assessment of Paved Road, November 2021). AECOM reviewed the RIP report to gather the roadway inventory and current condition information for the target road and parking lot sections of COWP; i.e., sections identified by the RIP report as candidates for pavement preservation, as well as sections adjacent to these candidate sections and/or sections considered to be in similar condition. Table 1 summarizes the relevant RIP data for the candidate/added section of COWP. The added sections (shown in blue text throughout the report) are included in the 70% design plans as “Options”.

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 4 | P a g e

Table 1: COWP Target Road/Parking Lot Sections RIP Data

ROUTE ID ROAD

AREA

(SF)

SEGMENT

LENGTH (MILES)

ROADWAY

WIDTH (FT)

PAVEMENT

TYPE

PCR

RECOMMENDED

TREATMENT

COWP-0010 MAIN ENTRANCE ROAD 0.45 20.0 Asphalt 99 Localized Repair COWP-0011 TOUR ROAD 2.54 14.0 Asphalt 99 Localized Repair COWP-0401 MAINTENANCE AREA ACCESS RD 0.13 18.5 Asphalt 99 Localized Repair COWP-0900 VISITOR CENTER PARKING 63,085 Asphalt 90 Preventative Maintenance COWP-0902 MAINTENANCE AREA 13,387 Asphalt 90 Preventative Maintenance COWP-0903 OVERLOOK NO.1 PARKING 7,001 Asphalt 90 Preventative Maintenance COWP-0904 SCRUGGS HOUSE PARKING 19,631 Asphalt 90 Preventative Maintenance COWP-0905 BATTLEFIELD PARKING NUMBER 1 21,623 Asphalt 90 Preventative Maintenance COWP-0906 BATTLEFIELD PARKING NUMBER 2 6,051 Asphalt 97 Localized Repair COWP-0907 PICNIC AREA LOOP 41,114 Asphalt 97 Localized Repair COWP-0913 GOV PARKING 6,303 Asphalt 90 Preventative Maintenance COWP-0914 TRAILHEAD PARKING 18,190 Asphalt 73 L3R Notes:

1) PCR = Pavement Condition Rating, L3R = Light Rehabilitation, H3R = Heavy Rehabilitation

2) Throughout this report, Added Sections are shown in BLUE.

2.2 Review of FY19 Pavement Preservation Design Scoping Report for COWP

NPS provided AECOM with the Design Scoping Report for the previous round of pavement preservation projects for COWP (NP-SER PMS FY19). A review of this report indicated that all COWP target sections were also considered for pavement preservation treatments as part of the FY19 project. Further discussions with the NPS team and the Park Units, along with a review of other relevant project documents, confirmed that these sections received pavement preservation under the SER PMS FY19 Project. The available project plans included four proposed preservation treatment options: 1.5 in. overlay, 0.75 in. overlay, chip seal, and micro-surfacing; however, the actual treatment selection for each road or parking lot section was left to the contractors. AECOM’s visual observations regarding the most likely past pavement preservation treatments are included in Table 3.

2.3 On-Site Scoping

AECOM performed an on-site scoping field visit on November 25, 2024, along with members of the NPS project team and the COWP Park Unit team. Per the project scope, the on-site scoping field visit was conducted to evaluate the current site conditions of the park sections listed in Table 1. The project team’s on-site scoping field visit activities included the following:

• Conduct tailgate safety briefings with the project team and sign Task Hazard Assessment

(THA).

• Discuss the scope and objectives of the on-site field visits with the Park Unit Team.

• Gather site-specific information from the Park Unit Team including:

- Priorities of roadways to treat,

- Other ongoing/planned projects that may impact the planned pavement treatment work,

- Concerns with existing roadway configurations (one-way roads),

- Any present or anticipated changes in vehicular traffic volume and/or type within the park.

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 5 | P a g e

- Past safety incidents/concerns related to roadway signage reported by park users,

- Past pavement preservation/rehabilitation work at the park and experiences with those treatments,

- Any other relevant information such as staging areas, permitting requirements, etc.

• Conducting the site walk of each roadway/parking lot section to:

- Evaluate the existing pavement condition, including estimating cracks and identifying the preliminary pavement preservation treatment.

- Evaluate the conditions of existing curbs, gutters, wheel stops, drainage inlets, ADA ramps, etc., and note improvement requirements.

- Provide opinion on the condition and adequacy of existing roadway and parking signage, including handicap parking signs.

- Review the existing striping (including the need for scarifying thermoplastic prior to treatments) and the need for striping parking stalls, as well as add/relocate handicap parking spots.

The draft on-site scoping field meeting minutes were submitted to NPS on December 15, 2024, and the final meeting minutes (revised per NPS comments) were submitted to NPS on January 17, 2025.

The field notes from the on-site scoping field meeting including geo-referenced photographs taken by the project team are included in Appendix B.

3.0 Scope of Work – Design Development (DD) Phase

AECOM performed the following activities during the DD phase to finalize the pavement preservation treatment recommendations for the COWP sections:

3.1 70% Design Site Visit

AECOM conducted a 70% design site walk at the park on May 21, 2025, to supplement the findings from the scoping site walk and perform a more detailed pavement condition survey. This was to finalize pavement recommendations and the 70% design deliverables. The following activities were conducted during the 70% design site walk:

• Establish the project baseline for the 70% design plans.

• Mark the core and test pit locations for the Geotechnical investigation.

• Identify the locations and conditions of existing roadway features, such as structures

(bridges and culverts), signage, utility features, traffic loops, and other elements, and note any needs for improvements.

• Identify locations that need localized pavement treatments, such as full or partial depth patching and aggregate/seed mixes for shoulder support.

The findings from the 70% design site walk, along with corresponding recommendations, are incorporated into Section 4 of this report and the 70% design plans.

3.2 Subsurface Sampling and Investigation

Due to extensive pavement distress observed at the Main Entrance Road (COWP-0010, outside the entrance gate) and the Trailhead Parking Area (COWP-0914), subsurface investigation was conducted to obtain detailed pavement structure information—such as layer types, thicknesses, and engineering properties of both bound and unbound layers—to support the final treatment

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 6 | P a g e recommendations. On May 30, 2025, AECOM extracted one (1) pavement core and one (1) test pit from COWP-0010, and three (3) cores and one (1) test pit from COWP-0914. Geotechnical test results are provided in Appendices C1 through C3, and the key findings are summarized below:

• Main Entrance Road (COWP-0010) – Outside the park entrance gate:

o Asphalt thickness ranges from 2 to 3 inches.

o A 2-inch crushed aggregate base layer is present beneath the asphalt.

o The subgrade consists of silty sand (AASHTO classification A-7-6), with a design resilient modulus (MR) of 6,000 psi.

• Trailhead Parking (COWP-0914):

o Asphalt thickness ranges from 2.75 to 4 inches, averaging approximately 3.75 inches.

o Surface course debonding was observed in two of five cores, occurring at depths between 0.75 and 1.25 inches.

o All four cores taken on visible cracks showed the cracking had propagated through the full asphalt depth.

o Approximately 5 inches of aggregate base material were present, based on visual observation; this thickness was used for pavement design.

o Subgrade soils were classified as silty sand or sandy silt with gravel (AASHTO classification A-4), with a design MR of 10,000 psi.

3.3 Review of Available Traffic Data

AECOM reviewed the Year 2024 traffic counts provided by the National Park Service (NPS) at key locations within the park. Historical traffic data from the “NPS Stats Report Viewer” were also reviewed to assess long-term trends. The 2024 counts indicated an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 108 vehicles at the Main Gate (COWP-0010) and 43 vehicles at the Trailhead Parking Area (COWP- 0914). Based on historical data from 2021 to 2024, design ADT values of 120 and 50 were selected for COWP-0010 and COWP-0914, respectively.

Although vehicle classification data were not available, the monthly count of buses (FHWA Truck Class 4) was provided. This information, combined with the design ADT, was used to estimate the 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) values for pavement design. Full traffic and ESAL calculation details are included in Appendix D. The estimated 20-year design ESALs are 11,252 for COWP-0010 and 4,688 for COWP-0914.

3.4 Construction Summary Estimate

A DD level construction cost estimate, consistent with the Department of the Interior (DOI) Estimate Type B, is being developed based on the pavement preservation treatments proposed for the parking lots and roadway sections of COWP. This estimate will be submitted as a separate deliverable with the 70% design package. A summary of the estimated construction cost, based on a DOI Estimate Type C for COWP, is included in Appendix F.

3.5 Construction Schedule Summary

A construction schedule was developed based on the pavement preservation treatments proposed for the parking lots and roadway sections of COWP, and it is included in Appendix G.

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 7 | P a g e

4.0 Pavement Analysis, Findings, and Recommendations

AECOM performed pavement design analysis to determine the structural adequacy of the section of COWP-0010 outside the park entrance gate and COWP-0914 parking lot to support the expected design traffic load for a 20-year service life. Pavement design calculations were performed according to the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1993, and in line with Chapter 11 of the FHWA Project Design and Development Manual. The AASHTO 1993 design calculations are included in Appendix E, and the findings and recommendations are discussed below:

Main Entrance Road (COWP-0010) – Outside the park entrance gate

Based on AASHTO 1993 design calculations, the existing pavement structure—consisting of 2 to 3 inches of asphalt over a 2-inch aggregate base with a subgrade resilient modulus (MR) of 6,000 psi— is structurally inadequate. The pavement is in poor condition, exhibiting widespread medium- to high-severity alligator cracking. In addition to its structural deficiencies, this section is subjected to frequent stop-and-go and turning movements due to its location at the intersection with Chesnee Highway, further accelerating deterioration. Reconstruction is recommended with a new pavement section consisting of 5 inches of asphalt over a 6-inch aggregate base to accommodate the traffic demands and improve long-term performance.

Trailhead Parking (COWP-0914)

The trailhead parking lot consists of two distinct sections with varying pavement conditions and structural characteristics. The area near the entrance (approximately 50 feet from Hayes Road) has a thinner asphalt section—about 2.75 inches—and exhibits high-severity alligator cracking. The remainder of the lot has a thicker asphalt layer, approximately 4 inches, and shows low- to medium-severity longitudinal and transverse cracking, along with localized medium-severity alligator cracking.

Although AASHTO 1993 design calculations show that the existing pavement is structurally sufficient, a full-depth asphalt reconstruction is recommended for the entrance area due to its poor condition. A new pavement box consisting of 5 inches of asphalt over a 6-inch aggregate base is recommended for this area, similar to the entrance at the Main Entrance Road.

The remaining area of the parking lot should be repaired with localized patching to fix the medium-severity alligator cracking, followed by a 2-inch asphalt mill and overlay. The 2-inch milling thickness is chosen because it will remove the debonding issues observed in the surface layer.

The remaining sections of COWP exhibit limited pavement surface distress and are hence considered ideal for pavement preservation treatments. The pavement conditions and treatment recommendations for each of the remaining sections of COWP are discussed in further detail below:

Main Entrance Road (COWP-0010) – Remaining Area

The pavement inside the entrance gate shows low-severity longitudinal and transverse cracking.

Surface treatment through crack sealing and seal coating will be appropriate for this pavement.

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 8 | P a g e

Tour Road (COWP-0011)

The pavement contains low-severity longitudinal and transverse cracking. Pavement preservation via a surface treatment, consisting of crack sealing and seal coating, will be appropriate for this pavement.

Maintenance Area Access Road (COWP-0401) & Maintenance Area (COWP-0902)

The pavement condition is similar to that of COWP-0011; therefore, the same treatment should apply to the Maintenance Area Access Road (crack sealing and seal coating).

The Maintenance Area was not in the original project scope. However, considering that the pavement condition is similar to that of adjacent COWP-0401, COWP-0902 is being added to the 70% design plans as an option, with the same recommended treatment as COWP-0401.

Visitor Center Parking (COWP-0900) & GOV Parking (COWP-0913)

The pavement is in good condition with low-severity longitudinal and transverse cracking. Surface treatment via crack sealing and seal coating is proposed for this pavement.

The GOV Parking was not in the original project scope. However, considering that the pavement condition is similar to that of adjacent COWP-0900, COWP-0913 is being added to the 70% design plans as an option, with the same recommended treatment as COWP-0900.

Overlook Number 1 Parking (COWP-0903)

The pavement is in good condition with low-severity longitudinal and transverse cracking being the predominant distress. Surface treatment via crack sealing and seal coating is proposed for this pavement.

Scruggs House Parking (COWP-0904)

The pavement is in good condition with low-severity longitudinal and transverse cracking being the predominant distress. Surface treatment via crack sealing and seal coating is appropriate for this parking area.

Battlefield Parking Number 1 (COWP-0905)

The pavement is in good condition with low-severity longitudinal and transverse cracking being the predominant distress. Surface treatment via crack sealing and seal coating is appropriate for this parking area.

Battlefield Parking Number 2 (COWP-0906)

The pavement is in good condition with low-severity longitudinal and transverse cracking being the predominant distress. Surface treatment via crack sealing and seal coating is appropriate for this parking area.

Picnic Area Loop (COWP-0907)

The pavement is in good condition, with low-severity longitudinal and transverse cracking being the predominant distress. Surface treatment via crack sealing and seal coating is appropriate for this parking area.

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 9 | P a g e

The following additional design considerations apply to COWP:

• Isolated areas needing more extensive repairs, such as partial- or full-depth patches due to significant damage like high-severity alligator cracks, edge cracks, or potholes, are identified during AECOM’s 70% design site visit and shown in the 70% design plans.

• Aggregate/seed mixes are recommended to fix edge-shoulder drop-off in specific areas along COWP-0010, COWP-0011, and COWP-0401. The locations and quantities of these mixes are detailed in the 70% design plans.

• The existing rubberized sidewalks at COWP-0904, COWP-0905, and COWP-0906 are in poor condition; however, the Park Unit noted that efforts are underway to improve/restore the sidewalks under separate projects.

• Due to the high volume of pedestrian and bike traffic on COWP-0010 and COWP-0011, a pedestrian/bike lane is proposed along the outbound lane of these roads (COWP-0010 and the two-way traffic portion of COWP-0011), marked with pavement markings and signage.

• Other signage improvements are recommended, including “Wrong Way” signs along the one-way traffic portion of COWP-0011 at COWP-0904, COWP-0905, COWP-0906, and COWP-0907 to restrict right turns while exiting the respective parking areas.

• Revising structural grading is not a part of this pavement preservation project but the observed adverse drainage conditions (water ponding issues, failed/deteriorated drainage structures, etc.) were noted during the site scoping field visit. Minor grade corrections will be achieved via asphalt mill and overlay treatments, where such treatments are recommended. The table below includes the drainage condition observations for each COWP section:

Table 2: Drainage Observations for COWP Sections Route ID Drainage Observation COWP-0010 4 pipe culverts (one 36” RCP, and three CMP culverts) in good condition COWP-0011 2 CMP culverts in good condition COWP-0401 None COWP-0900 Catch basins in good condition COWP-0902 Pavement drainage swale in fair condition (cracks to be sealed) COWP-0903 CMP culvert in fair condition COWP-0904 CMP culvert (needs cleaning) COWP-0905 CMP culvert in good condition COWP-0906 None COWP-0907 CMP culverts in fair condition (needs cleaning) COWP-0913 None COWP-0914 RCP culvert in good condition

Below is a summary of the findings and recommendations for each park section based on the pavement investigation and analysis results:

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 10 | P a g e

Table 3: Findings and Recommendations for Each COWP Road/Parking Lot Section

Route ID Previous Preservation Treatment (FY19)1

From the RIP Report From AECOM’s Field Scoping Site Visit Comment / Reasons for Variance PCR

Recommended Treatment2

Overall Pavement Condition

Predominant Distress

Treatment Recommendation

COWP-0010 Microsurfacing 99 Localized

Repair Good

Thermal (L&T) cracking Alligator cracking

Entrance: Reconstruction Rest: Crack seal & seal coat w/ localized patching

The area near the entrance is in much worse condition than the RIP reported.

COWP-0011 Microsurfacing 99 Localized

Repair Good Thermal (L&T) cracking Crack seal & seal coat

No localized repair needs were observed during site visits.

COWP-0401 Microsurfacing 99 Localized

Repair Good Edge cracking

Crack seal & seal coat w/ localized patching

COWP-0900 Microsurfacing 90 Preventative Maintenance

Good Thermal (L&T) cracking Crack seal & seal coat

COWP-0902 Microsurfacing 90 Preventative Maintenance

Good Thermal (L&T) cracking Crack seal & seal coat

COWP-0903 Microsurfacing 90 Preventative Maintenance

Good Thermal (L&T) cracking Crack seal & seal coat

COWP-0904 Microsurfacing 90 Preventative Maintenance Good Thermal (L&T) cracking Crack seal & seal coat

COWP-0905 Microsurfacing 90 Preventative Maintenance

Good Thermal (L&T) cracking Crack seal & seal coat

COWP-0906 Microsurfacing 97 Localized

Repair Good Thermal (L&T) cracking Crack seal & seal coat No localized repair needs were observed during site visits. The recommended treatment was changed from localized repair to preventive maintenance. COWP-0907 Microsurfacing 97

Localized Repair

Good Thermal (L&T) cracking

Alligator cracking Crack seal & seal coat

COWP-0913 Microsurfacing 90 Preventative Maintenance

Good Thermal (L&T) cracking Crack seal & seal coat

COWP-0914 Microsurfacing 73 L3R Fair to Poor Thermal (L&T) cracking Alligator cracking

Reconstruction 2” Mill & Overlay w/ Localized Patching

The area near the west entrance is in much worse condition than the RIP reported.

Notes:

1) The most likely previous pavement preservation treatment based on the visual observations during the on-site scoping site visit.

2) Per the RIP Report, below are the descriptions of the recommended treatment categories:

a. Localized Repair: Pavement in “Excellent” condition (PCR = 95-100). Treatment includes spot repairs.

b. Preventative Maintenance: Pavement in “Good” condition (PCR = 85-95). Treatments include crack sealing, chip seal, slurry seal, micro-surfacing, thin/ ultrathin overlay, concrete joint sealing, diamond grinding, dowel-bar retrofit, and isolated, partial or full-depth concrete slab repairs.

c. Light Rehabilitation: Pavement in “Fair” condition (PCR = 60-85). Treatment includes single-lift overlay up to 2.5” and milling and overlaying.

d. Heavy Rehabilitation: Pavement in “Poor” condition (PCR < 60). Treatment includes multi-lift overlay > 2.5”.

e. Reconstruction: Pavement in “Poor” condition (PCR < 60). Treatment includes replacing the entire existing pavement structure.

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 11 | P a g e

Note that the overall pavement conditions were rated as Good/Fair/Poor based on AECOM’s on-site scoping field visit observations. Standard pavement engineering practices were applied to determine such rating, a summary of which is included below for reference:

“Good” pavement condition:

• Pavement has minimal surface defects.

• No significant cracks, potholes, or raveling (loss of aggregate).

• Minimum aging (surface color remains dark, indicating minimal loss of asphalt binder due to oxidation).

• Maintenance treatments, e.g., seal coating, crack sealing, etc. are appropriate for a “Good” condition pavement.

“Fair” pavement condition

• Some visible signs of wear, such as minor cracks (hairline to ¼ inch wide).

• Early signs of aging (fading asphalt color).

• Some surface raveling or minor depressions but no major structural issues.

• Patching or previous repairs are intact.

• Heavier preservation treatments, such as localized repair, micro surfacing, or resurfacing are considered to treat a pavement in “Fair” condition.

“Poor” Condition

• Extensive cracking, including alligator (interconnected) cracks or wide transverse/longitudinal cracks (>¼ inch).

• Potholes, ruts, or significant depressions present, causing uneven surfaces.

• Medium to severe raveling or aggregate loss, leading to rough texture.

• Potential water pooling or drainage issues.

• Previous patches or repairs are deteriorating or failing.

• The pavement may be a candidate for a mill and overlay treatment or full-depth reconstruction.

Depending on the treatment types, pavement preservation activities generally can extend the life of a pavement by 5-10 years. For reference, the table below provides a general guideline on the expected performances of the different preservation treatments (when applied to a pavement in appropriate condition):

Table 4: “Expected” Performance Period of Typical Pavement Preservation Treatments Treatment Expected Performance (Years) Crack Sealing + Seal Coating (Slurry Seal) 5-7 Microsurfacing 6-8 Thin Overlay 8-10 Non-structural Mill and Overlay 10+

Appendix A – Project Location

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix A

COWP

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix A

Appendix B – Scoping Site Visit Field Notes and Photos

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix B

COWP-0010: Main Entrance Road Section Length/Area 0.45 Miles Other Observations Proposed Bike/Ped. Lane (outbound lane) Pavement Type Asphalt Curb Concrete curb1 (Fair/Poor) RIP Data (PCR) 99 Sidewalk None Overall Pavement Condition Good Drainage Structure Pipe Culverts1

Predominant Distress Alligator cracking1, Block cracking L&T cracking Road Signs Good. Proposed “Walking Sharrows”

Recommended Treatment Entrance: Reconstruction Rest: Crack seal & seal coat w/ localized patching

Handicap Parking None

Geotechnical Testing 1 Core & 1 test pit Existing Striping Thermoplastic DYCL (Good/Fair) Notes:

1. Locations on marked plan.

Section Distress Treatment

M/H Alligator Cracking 400 SF L L&T Cracking 1200’

Entrance: Reconstruction Rest: Crack seal & seal coat w/ localized patching

Legend:

L&T – Longitudinal & Transverse Cracking L, M, H – Low, Medium, or High severity cracks DYCL – Double Yellow Center Line Striping CMP – Corrugated Metal Pipe RCP – Reinforced Concrete Pipe

COWP-0010: Main Entrance Road

❶ Lat/Long: 35.13745,-81.819519 L-L&T/Block Cracking

❷ Lat/Long: 35.137256,-81.819397 Microsurfacing delaminating. Damaged concrete curb

❸ Lat/Long: 35.141769,-81.815903 M-Alligator Cracking (proposed patch)

❹ Lat/Long: 35.139897,-81.817969 Edge drop-off (proposed edge support)

COWP-0011: Tour Road Section Length/Area 2.54 Mile Other Observations Proposed Bike/Ped. Lane (outbound lane) Pavement Type Asphalt Curb None RIP Data (PCR) 99 Sidewalk None (shared Ped./Bike lane)1 Overall Pavement Condition Good Drainage Structure Pipe culverts Predominant Distress L&T/Block cracking Road Signs Proposed WRONG WAY & Ped/Bike signs1 Recommended Treatment Crack Seal & Seal Coat Handicap Parking None Geotechnical Testing None Existing Striping Thermoplastic paint (Fair)

1. Locations on the marked plan.

1 L Block Cracking Crack Seal & Seal Coat

L&T – Longitudinal & Transverse cracking L, M – Low or Medium severity cracks

COWP-0011: Tour Road

❶ Lat/Long: 35.13557,-81.819385 L-Block Cracking.

❷ Lat/Long: 35.131073,-81.816066 Beginning of one-way road with shared Ped/Bike lane.

❸ Lat/Long: 35.135539,-81.819436 L-Block Cracking. Thermoplastic Double Yellow Center Line (Fair).

❹ Lat/Long: 35.131006,-81.815886 Proposed seed-aggregate edge support.

COWP-0401: Maintenance Area Access Road Section Length/Area 0.13 Miles Other Observations Pavement Type Asphalt Curb None RIP Data (PCR) 99 Sidewalk None Overall Pavement Condition Good Drainage Structure None Predominant Distress Edge cracking1 Road Signs Okay Recommended Treatment Crack Seal & Seal Coat Handicap Parking None Geotechnical Testing None Existing Striping Thermoplastic (Fair)

M Edge Cracking 100’ L L&T Cracking 40’

Crack Seal & Seal Coat

L&T – Longitudinal & Transverse cracking

Swing Gates

Traffic Loop

24 STOP Bar (Thermoplastic)

Edge Cracking

Maintenance Area Parking lot has similar treatment as the through road

COWP-0401: Maintenance Area Access Road

❶ Lat/Long: 35.130772,-81.815986 M-Edge Cracking

❷ Lat/Long: 35.129744,-82.816663 L-L&T Cracking.

❸ Lat/Long: 35.130517,-81.816139 M-Edge Cracking

❹ Lat/Long: 35.130919,-81.815942 Minimum pavement distress. Thermoplastic striping (Fair)

COWP-0900: Visitor Center Parking Section Length/Area 63,085 SF Other Observations Pavement Type Asphalt Curb PCC curbs (low reveal) (need repair1)

Possible paved-over curb & gutter RIP Data (PCR) 90 Sidewalk PCC sidewalk (Good) Overall Pavement Condition Good Drainage Structure Catch basins (Good) Predominant Distress L&T Cracking Road Signs Okay Recommended Treatment Crack seal & seal coat Handicap Parking 5 (Van access) Geotechnical Testing None Existing Striping Thermoplastic Stop bar & DYCL

Other striping: regular paint (Fair)

1 L L&T Cracking 2,900’ Crack seal & seal coat

L&T – Longitudinal & Transverse cracks DYCL – Double Yellow Center Line striping.

24 STOP Bar (Thermoplastic)

PCC Curb Repair

(both sides)

PCC Curb & Gutter (Good)

5 Handicap Parking (Van Accessible)

(Good)

PCC Curb Repair

PCC sidewalk (Good)

24 STOP Bar (Thermoplastic)

DYCL (Thermoplastic)

DYCL (Thermoplastic)

COWP-0900: Visitor Center Parking

❶ Lat/Long: 35.136781,-81.818519 L-L&T Cracking. Handicap parking with signage (Good). PCC sidewalk (Good).

❷ Lat/Long: 35.136678,-81.818558 Microsurfacing delaminated

❸ Lat/Long: 35.136561,-81.819519 L-L&T Crack. Thermoplastic striping (Fair)

❹ Lat/Long:35.137342,-81.818917 Curb damage repair area, catch basin (Good).

COWP-0902: Maintenance Area (Added) Section Length/Area 13,387 SF Other Observations Pavement Type Asphalt Curb None RIP Data (PCR) 90 Sidewalk None Overall Pavement Condition Good Drainage Structure Pavement drainage swale (cracks to be sealed) Predominant Distress L&T Cracking Road Signs Okay Recommended Treatment Crack Seal & Seal Coat Handicap Parking None Geotechnical Testing None Existing Striping None

1. The section was part of the SER-PMS-FY2019 project along with COWP-0401.

1 L L&T Cracking 300’ Crack Seal & Seal Coat

Water Valve

Swing Gates

COWP-0902: Maintenance Area (Added)

❶ Lat/Long: 35.129863,-81.816896 L-L&T Cracking. Water valve.

❷ Lat/Long: 35.129912,-81.81682 L-L&T Cracking. Pavement drainage swale (cracks to be sealed)

❸ Lat/Long: 35.129862, -81.816815 Outfall area/drainage swale needs cleaning

❹ Lat/Long: 35.129780, -81.816696

COWP-0903: Overlook No.1 Parking

Section Length/Area 7,001 SF Other Observations Parallel parking spaces to be widened Pavement Type Asphalt Curb None RIP Data (PCR) 90 Sidewalk None Overall Pavement Condition Good Drainage Structure CMP culvert (Fair)1 Predominant Distress L&T Cracking Road Signs Okay Recommended Treatment Surface treatment Handicap Parking None Geotechnical Testing None Existing Striping Thermoplastic Stop bar

Other striping: regular paint (Fair)

1 L L&T Cracking 350’ Crack Seal & Seal Coat

CMP Culvert (Fair)

STOP sign (Good)

24 STOP Bar (Thermoplastic)

Proposed WRONG WAY / ONE WAY Sign

Proposed

EEP LEFT

Sign

Adjust width of parallel parking

Adjust curvature of existing striping to match the outside radius

COWP-0903: Overlook No.1 Parking

❶ Lat/Long: 35.130569,-81.814614 L-L&T Cracking. Parallel parking spots to be widened

❷ Lat/Long: 35.130372,-81.814239 L-L&T Cracking

❸ Lat/Long: 35.130275,-81.814164 CMP culvert in fair condition

❹ Lat/Long :35.13025,-81.814147 Stop sign (Good) and thermoplastic stop bar (Fair)

COWP-0904: Scruggs House Parking Section Length/Area 19,631 SF Other Observations Pavement Type Asphalt Curb PCC curbs1 (Good) RIP Data (PCR) 90 Sidewalk Rubberized sidewalk1 (Poor) Overall Pavement Condition Good Drainage Structure CMP culvert1 (Good) Predominant Distress L&T Cracking Road Signs Okay Recommended Treatment Surface treatment Handicap Parking 1 (Van access) Geotechnical Testing None Existing Striping Thermoplastic Stop bar

Other striping: regular paint (Fair)

1 L L&T Cracking 1,150’ Crack Seal & Seal Coat

L&T – Longitudinal & Transverse cracks DYCL – Double Yellow Center Line striping

18 CMP Culvert (Needs cleaning)

24 STOP Bar (Thermoplastic)

1 Handicap Parking

w. ADA Ramp

Concrete Curb 3 Reveal

Rubberized sidewalk (Poor) eep Right Sign

DYCL (regular paint)

Ex. ADA Ramp w/dimple panels (Good)

Proposed

WRONG WAY /

ONE WAY Sign

Ex. EEP LEFT Sign

Ex. STOP sign (Good)

COWP-0904: Scruggs House Parking

❶ Lat/Long: 35.132872,-81.804298

❷ Lat/Long: 35.132534,-81.804455

❸ Lat/Long: 35.131898,-81.80464 L-L&T Crack. PCC curb & rubberized sidewalk

❹ Lat/Long:35.132953,-81.804178 CMP culvert (Good).

COWP-0905: Battlefield Parking Number 1 Section Length/Area 21,623 SF Other Observations Pavement Type Asphalt Curb PCC curbs1 (Good) RIP Data (PCR) 90 Sidewalk Rubberized sidewalk1 (Poor) Overall Pavement Condition Good Drainage Structure CMP culvert1 (Good) Predominant Distress L&T Cracking Road Signs Okay Recommended Treatment Surface treatment Handicap Parking 1 (Van access) Geotechnical Testing None Existing Striping Thermoplastic Stop bar

Other striping: regular paint (Fair)

1 L L&T Cracking 1,700’ Crack Seal & Seal Coat

L&T – Longitudinal & Transverse cracks DYCL – Double Yellow Center Line striping

15 CMP Culvert

24 STOP Bar (Thermoplastic)

1 Handicap Parking

w. ADA Ramp Rubberized sidewalk (Fair)

Concrete Curb 3-6 Reveal

DYCL (regular paint) eep Right Sign

Ex. ADA Ramp w/dimple panels (Good)

Proposed

WRONG WAY /

ONE WAY Sign

Ex. EEP LEFT Sign

Ex. STOP sign

COWP-0905: Battlefield Parking Number 1

❶ Lat/Long: 35.135418,-81.807679

❷ Lat/Long: 35.134739,-81.809144 L-L&T Crack. PCC curb & rubberized sidewalk

❸ Lat/Long: 35.13475,-81.809006 L-L&T Crack

❹ Lat/Long :35.135514,-81.807594 CMP culvert (Good)

COWP-0906: Battlefield Parking Number 2 Section Length/Area 6,051 SF Other Observations Pavement Type Asphalt Curb PCC curbs1 (Good) RIP Data (PCR) 97 Sidewalk Rubberized sidewalk1 (Failed) Overall Pavement Condition Good Drainage Structure None

Predominant Distress L&T Cracking Road Signs Proposed “WRONG WAY” sign. Replace existing “Yield” w/ STOP sign (for consistency)

Recommended Treatment Surface treatment Handicap Parking 1 (Van access) Geotechnical Testing None Existing Striping Regular paint (Fair)

1 L L&T Cracking 500’ Crack Seal & Seal Coat

1 Handicap Parking (Van Access)

Rubberized sidewalk (Poor)

Concrete Curb 1-5 Reveal

Ex. ADA Ramp w/ dimple panels (Good)

Ex. EEP LEFT Sign

Proposed

WRONG WAY /

ONE WAY Sign

Ex. YIELD sign (Replace w/ STOP sign)

COWP-0906: Battlefield Parking Number 2

❶ Lat/Long: 35.137869,-81.813919

❷ Lat/Long: 35.137912,-81.813944 L-L&T Cracking. Rubberized sidewalk (Poor)

❸ Lat/Long: 35.137931,-81.813956 L-L&T Crack. Handicap parking (van accessible)

❹ Lat/Long :35.138083,-81.813956 Handicap parking (van accessible)

COWP-0907: Picnic Area Loop Section Length/Area 41,114 SF Other Observations Pavement Type Asphalt Curb PCC wheel stops (50% Fair, 50% Good) RIP Data (PCR) 97 Sidewalk Asphalt sidewalk1 (Fair) Overall Pavement Condition Good Drainage Structure CMP culverts (Fair) Predominant Distress L&T Cracking, Alligator Cracking Road Signs Okay Recommended Treatment Surface treatment Handicap Parking 6 (Van access)1 Geotechnical Testing None Existing Striping Thermoplastic Stop bar

Other striping: regular paint (Fair)

L L&T Cracking 550’ M Alligator Cracking 20 SF

Crack Seal & Seal Coat

CMP – Corrugated Metal Pipe.

24 STOP Bar (Thermoplastic)

1 handicap Parking (Van accessible)

Wooden guiderail (Seal coat behind posts)

2 handicap parallel parking (striping missing)

Asphalt sidewalk (Fair/Poor)

1 handicap parking (Good)

2 handicap Parking (Van accessible)

CMP Culvert (needs cleaning)

Water Valve

Aggregate edge support (both sides)

Proposed hatching at VIP Parking

(Confirm with the Park)

Remove handicap path sign

Ex.

WRONG WAY

Sign

Ex. EEPRIGHT Sign Ex. STOP sign

COWP-0907: Picnic Area Loop

❶ Lat/Long: 35.129345,-81.803858 M-Alligator Cracking.

❷ Lat/Long: 35.128954,-81.802835 CMP culvert (needs to be cleaned). Edge drop-off (edge support)

❸ Lat/Long: 35.128381,-81.802658 L-L&T Crack (tree root). PCC wheel stop (Fair-left, Good-right)

❹ Lat/Long:35.127719,-81.803231 Handicap parking. Wooden posts. Asphalt sidewalk (seal coat proposed)

COWP-0913: GOV Parking (Added) Section Length/Area 6,303 SF Other Observations Pavement Type Asphalt Curb PCC curb and gutter1 RIP Data (PCR) 90 Sidewalk None Overall Pavement Condition Good Drainage Structure None Predominant Distress L&T Cracking Road Signs Okay

Recommended Treatment Crack seal & seal coat w/ localized patching

Handicap Parking 1 (Van access)

Geotechnical Testing None Existing Striping Regular paint (Fair)

1 L L&T Cracking 275’ Crack seal & seal coat

C&G – Curb & Gutter

PCC Curb & Gutter

PCC Curb & Gutter Asphalt is 1 above the C&G

2 PCC Slabs 1 linear crack ( rout & seal)

1 handicap spot

Underground utility (water)

COWP-0913: GOV Parking (Added)

❶ Lat/Long: 35.136452,-81.81883

❷ Lat/Long:35.136211,-81.818458 L-L&T Cracking/Reflecting utility patch

❸ Lat/Long: 35.136286,-81.818254 L-L&T Crack. Asphalt 1” higher than the PCC curb & gutter.

❹ Lat/Long:35.136456,-81.8181 Cracked concrete slabs.

COWP-0914: Trailhead Parking

Section Length/Area 18,190 SF Other Observations Pavement Type Asphalt Curb PCC curbs1 (Good) RIP Data (PCR) 73 Sidewalk PCC sidewalk1 (Good) Overall Pavement Condition Fair to Poor Drainage Structure RCP Culvert (Good) Predominant Distress Alligator Cracking, L&T Cracking Road Signs Reorient “DO NOT ENTER” Sign1

Recommended Treatment Reconstruction 2” Mill & Overlay w/ Localized Patching

Handicap Parking 2 (Van access)

Geotechnical Testing 3 Cores & 2 Test Pits Existing Striping Regular paint (Fair)

L/M L&T Cracking 1,250’ M/H Alligator Cracking 3,000 SF

Reconstruction 2” Mill & Overlay w/ Localized Patching

L, M, H – Low, Medium, or High severity cracks

M/H Alligator Crack

- Reconstruct

12 RCP Culvert (Good)

Ex. STOP/ DO NOT ENTER Sign Needs to be reoriented Add One Way Arrow

Underground Electric line

PCC Sidewalk (Good) PCC Curb (Good)

Traffic Loop (not functioning)

M Alligator Crack

- Patch (40 x 20 )

2 Handicap parking w/ van access

(1 sign)

Ex. Electric meter mountedon post

Trailer parking (3) Ex. crosswalk)

9 Arrow (regular paint)

Proposed 2nd DO NOT ENTER Signw. One Way Arrow

COWP-0914: Trailhead Parking

❶ Lat/Long: 35.131278,-81.797661 H-Alligator Cracking.

❷ Lat/Long: 35.131022,-81.796661 M-Alligator Cracking

❸ Lat/Long: 35.131074,-81.797124 L-L&T Crack

❹ Lat/Long: 35.131253,-81.797486 M-Alligator Cracking. Handicap parking spots.

Appendix C1 – Subsurface Sampling and Geotechnical Testing Data

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix C

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix C

Table: Core Data Summary COWP

AC Unbound Layers

Core/TP # Route ID Thickness (in)

Cracking (in.)

Debonding (in.) Base Subgrade Comment

C1 COWP-0914 2.75 0.00-2.75 -- CAB -- Taken on an Alligator Crack C2 COWP-0914 4.00 0.00-4.00 1.25 CAB -- Taken on a Longitudinal Crack C3 COWP-0914 4.00 0.00-4.00 0.75 CAB -- Taken on an Alligator Crack

C4 COWP-0010 2.00 -- -- CAB --

TP1 COWP-0914 3.75 0.00-3.75 -- 4.75" of A-1-a A-4 Taken on an Alligator Crack TP2 COWP-0914 4.00 -- -- 5" of A-1-a A-4

TP3 COWP-0010 3.00 -- 2" of A-1-a A-7-6

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

C1 C2 C3 TP1 TP2

A C

T hi ck ne ss (i n.

COWP-0914 Asphalt Thickness Cores Test Pits

Appendix C2 – Material Sampling Photo Documentation Log

Date Site Code: COWP Sampled By JSG/NJ

Legend: G = Good F = Fair P = Poor

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

Core Notes:

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

P

Core Notes:

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

P

Core Notes:

Total Depth 4 inches

Subbase Course Visual Identification = (¾)'' Crushed Stone Taken on an Alligator Crack (Full Depth)

Layer Type Description

H M A

Wearing Course/ Overlay 0.75 HMA

Base 3.25

HMA

Total Depth 4 inches

Subbase Course Visual Identification = Gray Coarse Aggregate Base Taken on a Longitudinal Crack (Full Depth)

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

C3 6"

COWP-0914

Layer Type Description

H M A

Surface 1.25 HMA

Base 2.75 HMA

C2 6"

COWP-0914

Total Depth 2.75 inches

Layer Type Description

H M A

Surface 2.75 HMA

Appendix C2: MATERIAL SAMPLING

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION LOG

5/30/2025

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

C1 6"

COWP-0914

Subbase Course Visual Identification = Gray Coarse Aggregate Base Taken on an Alligator Crack (Full Depth)

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

Appendix C2: MATERIAL SAMPLING

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION LOG

5/30/2025

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

G

Core Notes:

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

G

Core Notes:

H M A

Surface 1.25 HMA

Base 2.5 HMA

U N B O U N D

Base 4.75 Gravel w/ Silt & Sand

(GP-GM / A-1-a)

Subgrade 15.5 Sandy Silt w/ Gravel

(ML / A-4)

Layer Type Description Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

TP1 6"

COWP-0914

Subbase Course Visual Identification = Gray Crushed Agg Base

Total Depth 2 inches

HMA

Layer Type Description

H M A

Surface 0.75 HMA

Base 1.25

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

C4 6"

COWP-0010

Taken on an Alligator Crack (Full Depth) inchesTotal Depth 24

Appendix C2: MATERIAL SAMPLING

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION LOG

5/30/2025

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

G

Core Notes:

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

G

Core Notes:

Total Depth 24 inches

U N B O U N D

Base 5 Gravel w/ Silt and Sand

(GP-GM / A-1-a)

Subgrade 15 Silty Sand

(SM / A-4)

TP2 6"

COWP-0914

Layer Type Description

H M A

Surface 1 HMA

Base 2 HMA

U N B O U N D

Base 2 Gravel w/ Silt & Sand

(GP-GM / A-1-a)

Subgrade 19 Silty Sand

(ML / A-7-6)

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

Total Depth 24 inches

TP3 6"

COWP-0010

Layer Type Description

H M A

Surface 1.25 HMA

Base 2.75 HMA

Appendix C3 – Laboratory Test Results of Unbound Materials

TP1

Base 3.75-8.5

Gray POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND

GP-GM

A-1-a(0) 4.3 9

TP1

Subbase 1 8.5-24.0 Red brown SANDY SILT with GRAVEL

ML

A-4(2) 20.6 39 32 50

TP2

Base 4.0-9.0

Gray POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND

GP-GM

A-1-a(0) 4.0 8

TP2

Subbase 1 9.0-24.0 Red brown SILTY SAND

SM

A-4(1) 22.0 37 31 50

TP3

Base 3.0-5.0

Gray POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND

GP-GM

A-1-a(0) 6.2 12

TP3

Subbase 1 5.0-24.0 Red brown SANDY SILT

ML

A-7-6(7) 23.2 43 28 58

Liquid Limit

Triaxial Compression

Organic Content

Project: NPS SC - COWP

Atterberg Limits

<2µ

<#200

Sheet 1 of 1

Note: The soil classification is based partially on visual classification unless both grain size and Atterberg limits are performed.

Strain

P er m ea bi lit y (c m /s ec

C on so lid at io n

Strength (psi)

Special Tests

Boring and

Sample Numbers

Refer to Laboratory Test Curves

C om pa ct io n

USCS and

AASHTO

Symbols

Project No.: 60748151

UU

Water Content

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

CIU

Plastic Limit

Depth (ft)

Specific Gravity

Unconfined Compression

Grain Size Dry Unit Weight

(pcf) Classification

LAB_SUMMARY_BLUEBELL_AASHTO 60748151_2025-06-15_NPS SC - COWP.GPJ URS_BLUE.GDT 7/11/25

0.0010.010.1110100

SILT OR CLAY

SAND

COBBLES

coarse finemediumfinecoarse

U.S. STANDARD

SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

Figure 1

PERCENT FINER

Boring

Sample

Spec

Depth (ft)

% +3"

% Gravel

% Sand

% Fines

% -2µ

Cc

Cu

LL

PL

PI

AASHTO

USCS

w (%)

1.5

Project Number 60748151

July 2025

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Gray POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND (GP-GM)

Red brown SANDY SILT with GRAVEL (ML)

Gray POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND (GP-GM)

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G

203/8

3/42

SYMBOL

Particle Size

(Sieve #)

SYMBOL

TP1

Base

3.75-8.5

0.0

60.0

30.6

9.4

5.16

131.17

A-1-a(0)

GP-GM

4.3

TP1

Subbase 1

8.5-24.0

0.0

15.5

34.5

50.0

A-4(2)

ML

20.6

TP2

Base

4.0-9.0

0.0

61.3

30.9

7.8

5.67

66.06

A-1-a(0)

GP-GM

4.0

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

100.0

79.1

62.1

54.4

40.0

28.1

20.1

16.2

13.9

12.0

9.4

100.0

98.1

95.1

91.9

84.5

76.7

69.7

65.1

61.6

58.0

50.0

100.0

95.4

86.6

69.6

60.6

38.7

25.1

17.5

14.1

11.9

10.2

7.8

404 604

GRAVEL

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS

NPS SC - COWP

S

IE

V E

_B

LU

E B

E

LL

_A A

S H

T O

_2

-0 6-

_N

P S

S C

C

O W

P .G

P J

U R

S _B

LU

E

.G D

T

/1 1/

0.0010.010.1110100

SILT OR CLAY

SAND

COBBLES

coarse finemediumfinecoarse

U.S. STANDARD

SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

Figure 2

PERCENT FINER

Boring

Sample

Spec

Depth (ft)

% +3"

% Gravel

% Sand

% Fines

% -2µ

Cc

Cu

LL

PL

PI

AASHTO

USCS

w (%)

1.5

Project Number 60748151

July 2025

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Red brown SILTY SAND (SM)

Gray POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND (GP-GM)

Red brown SANDY SILT (ML)

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G

203/8

3/42

SYMBOL

Particle Size

(Sieve #)

SYMBOL

TP2

Subbase 1

9.0-24.0

0.0

13.7

36.5

49.8

A-4(1)

SM

22.0

TP3

Base

3.0-5.0

0.0

57.6

30.8

11.5

3.35

204.35

A-1-a(0)

GP-GM

6.2

TP3

Subbase 1

5.0-24.0

0.0

1.3

41.1

57.6

A-7-6(7)

ML

23.2

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

100.0

96.8

94.0

92.7

86.3

78.7

71.4

66.2

62.2

58.2

49.8

100.0

82.1

60.9

54.0

42.4

32.0

25.3

21.4

18.8

16.0

11.5

100.0

98.7

95.5

88.4

79.3

71.9

65.5

57.6

404 604

GRAVEL

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS

NPS SC - COWP

S

IE

V E

_B

LU

E B

E

LL

_A A

S H

T O

_2

-0 6-

_N

P S

S C

C

O W

P .G

P J

U R

S _B

LU

E

.G D

T

/1 1/

Appendix D – Traffic Data for Pavement Design

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix D

Traffic Data Provided by the NPS

Historical Traffic Data Downloaded from NPS Stats Report Viewer (Website: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Traffic%20Counts?Park=GRCA) https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Traffic%20Counts?Park=GRCA

Table: 2024 Vehicle Counts Month COWP-0010 COWP-0914

Jan 3,171 999 Feb 3,321 1,362 Mar 3,954 1,499 Apr 3,430 1,221 May 4,037 1,311 Jun 3,943 1,343 Jul 3,803 1,361

Aug 3,678 1,238 Sep 3,001 1,051 Oct 1,619 1,214 Nov 2,971 1,556 Dec 2,333 1,556

Annual Total 39,261 15,711

ADT 108 43

Table: ESAL Calculation Tables for COWP-0010 & COWP-0914

Route ID Class Design AADT Vehicle Distribution (%) Truck Factor ESAL 20-Year Design ESAL

COWP-0010

Classes 1-3

99.00% 0.0061 5,290

11,252 Class 4 1.00% 0.6806 5,962

COWP-0914

Classes 1-3

96.00% 0.0061 2,137

12,074 Class 4 4.00%* 0.6806 9,937

* 2 buses per day according to the Cherokee County Bus Transportation Information Website: https://www.cherokee.education/o/cherokee/page/bus-transportation-information https://www.cherokee.education/o/cherokee/page/bus-transportation-information

Appendix E – AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Calculations

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix E

AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Calculations

Project SC192 Pavement Preservation, Multiple Parks in South Carolina Section ID COWP-0010 Design for Structural Adequacy of Existing Pavement

Subgrade Mr (psi) = 6,000 Layer Thickness (in) Layer Coeff. Functional Classif ication Urban Rural

Acceptable terminal servicibility Pt = 2.5 HMA 1.00 0.34 Interstate and other freew ays 85-99.9 80-99.9

Initial servicibility P0 = 4.2 HMA 1.25 0.34 Principle arterials 80-99 75-95

Servicibility loss (DPSI) = 1.7 HMA 0.00 0.34 Collectors 80-95 75-95

Agg. Base 2.00 0.14 Local 50-80 50-80

ADT = 120 Subbase 0.00 0.11 S0=0.40-0.50 for flexible pavement (or overlay) design (I-62&III-82)

% Trucks = 1.0% S0=0.30-0.40 for AC overlay (III-121)

Daily Truck Volume = 1.20 Total Pavement Thickness 4 R ZR

Provided SN 1.05 50 0 60 -0.253

Design Life (Year) = 20.00 70 -0.524 Design ESAL = 11,252 80 -0.841

Reliability, R = 90 85 -1.037

ZR = -1.282 90 -1.282

Standard Deviation S0 = 0.45 91 -1.34

92 -1.405 93 -1.476 94 -1.555

W18 = 11,252 95 -1.645 Required SN = 1.79 96 -1.751

97 -1.881 98 -2.054 99 -2.327

100 -3.75

Fail [Provided SN < Required SN]

Design Inputs Existing Structure AASHTO 1993 Design Input References

P a g e I I-

Section ID COWP-0010 Design for Proposed Treatment: Reconstruction

Subgrade Mr (psi) = 6,000 Layer Thickness (in) Layer Coeff. Functional Classif ication Urban Rural

Acceptable terminal servicibility Pt = 2.5 HMA 1.50 0.44 Interstate and other freew ays 85-99.9 80-99.9

Initial servicibility P0 = 4.2 HMA 3.50 0.44 Principle arterials 80-99 75-95

Servicibility loss (DPSI) = 1.7 HMA 0.00 0.44 Collectors 80-95 75-95

Agg. Base 6.00 0.14 Local 50-80 50-80

ADT = 120 Subbase 0.00 0.11 S0=0.40-0.50 for flexible pavement (or overlay) design (I-62&III-82)

% Trucks = 1.0% S0=0.30-0.40 for AC overlay (III-121)

Daily Truck Volume = 1.20 Total Pavement Thickness 11 R ZR

Provided SN 3.04 50 0 60 -0.253

Design Life (Year) = 20.00 70 -0.524 Design ESAL = 11,252 80 -0.841

Reliability, R = 90 85 -1.037

ZR = -1.282 90 -1.282

Standard Deviation S0 = 0.45 91 -1.34

92 -1.405 93 -1.476 94 -1.555

W18 = 11,252 95 -1.645 Required SN = 1.79 96 -1.751

97 -1.881 98 -2.054 99 -2.327

100 -3.75

Pass [Provided SN > Required SN]

Design Inputs Proposed Structure AASHTO 1993 Design Input References

P a g e I

Section ID COWP-0914 Design for Structural Adequacy of Existing Pavement

Subgrade Mr (psi) = 10,000 Layer Thickness (in) Layer Coeff. Functional Classif ication Urban Rural

Acceptable terminal servicibility Pt = 2.5 HMA 1.00 0.34 Interstate and other freew ays 85-99.9 80-99.9

Initial servicibility P0 = 4.2 HMA 1.75 0.34 Principle arterials 80-99 75-95

Servicibility loss (DPSI) = 1.7 HMA 0.00 0.34 Collectors 80-95 75-95

Agg. Base 5.00 0.14 Local 50-80 50-80

ADT = 50 Subbase 0.00 0.11 S0=0.40-0.50 for flexible pavement (or overlay) design (I-62&III-82)

% Trucks = 1.0% S0=0.30-0.40 for AC overlay (III-121)

Daily Truck Volume = 0.50…