1-000-22054 Deseret Peaks Phase 4 Project Specifications Final 27Apr2026.pdf

THINK PROJECT NUMBER: 22054

PROJECT MANUAL

& SPECIFICATIONS

Specification Divisions 0-32

DESERET PEAKS COMPLEX

PHASE 4 IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT ADDRESS:

930 UT - 112

GRANTSVILLE, UTAH 840029

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

APRIL 27, 2026

22054 - Deseret Peaks - Phase 4- Tooele County TABLE OF CONTENTS 04-23-2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 0102 PROJECT INFORMATION 2

00 3100 AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION 1

00 4000 PROCUREMENT FORMS AND SUPPLEMENTS 1

00 4100 BID FORM 2

00 5000 CONTRACTING FORMS AND SUPPLEMENTS 1

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 1000 SUMMARY 3

01 2000 PRICE AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES 3

01 2300 ALTERNATES 2

01 2500 SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES 2

01 3000 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 8

01 3216 CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS SCHEDULE 2

01 4000 QUALITY REQUIREMENTS 4

01 4100 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1

01 4216 DEFINITIONS 1

01 4533 CODE-REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND PROCEDURES 4

01 5000 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS 2

01 5100 TEMPORARY UTILITIES 2

01 5213 FIELD OFFICES AND SHEDS 2

01 5500 VEHICULAR ACCESS AND PARKING 2

01 5713 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 6

01 6000 PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS 3

01 7000 EXECUTION AND CLOSEOUT REQUIREMENTS 7

01 7419 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL 3

01 7800 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS 2

01 7900 DEMONSTRATION AND TRAINING 1

DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 4100 DEMOLITION 2

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

03 2000 CONCRETE REINFORCING 3

03 3000 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE 8

DIVISION 04 - MASONRY

04 2000 UNIT MASONRY 6

DIVISION 05 - METALS

05 5000 METAL FABRICATIONS 3

05 5213 PIPE AND TUBE RAILINGS 3

DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 1000 ROUGH CARPENTRY 4

06 1053 MISCELLANEOUS ROUGH CARPENTRY 1

06 1753 SHOP-FABRICATED WOOD TRUSSES 3

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 1113 BITUMINOUS DAMPPROOFING 2

07 1400 FLUID-APPLIED WATERPROOFING 4

07 2100 THERMAL INSULATION 4

07 2400 EXTERIOR INSULATION AND FINISH SYSTEMS 2

07 4113 METAL ROOF PANELS 5

07 6100 SHEET METAL ROOFING 2

07 6200 SHEET METAL FLASHING AND TRIM 3

07 8400 FIRESTOPPING 3

07 9200 JOINT SEALANTS 3

07 9513 EXPANSION JOINT COVER ASSEMBLIES 2

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 1113 HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES 6

08 3323 OVERHEAD COILING DOORS 3

08 4313 ALUMINUM-FRAMED STOREFRONTS 4

08 7100 DOOR HARDWARE 8

08 8000 GLAZING 4

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

09 9113 EXTERIOR PAINTING 2

09 9123 INTERIOR PAINTING 5

09 9600 HIGH-PERFORMANCE COATINGS 4

DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES

10 2800 TOILET, BATH, AND LAUNDRY ACCESSORIES 4

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 0500 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR PLUMBING 2

22 1319.13 FLOOR CLEANOUTS 1

22 1116.13 HOT WATER PIPING 1

22 1116.16 COLD WATER PIPING 1

22 1119.13 LOCKING HOSE BIBBS 1

22 1123 RECIRCULATION PUMPS 1

22 1313 SUBGRADE PIPING 1

22 1316 SANITARY PIPING 1

22 1316.19 FLOOR DRAINS 1

22 1319.16 FLOOR CLEANOUTS 1

22 1323 SAND INTERCEPTOR 1

22 3313 ELECTRIC WATER HEATER 1

22 4213.13 VANDAL RESISTANT LAVATORIES 1

22 4213.16 MOP SINKS 1

22 4213.19 VANDAL RESISTANT SHOWERS 1

22 4213.23 VANDAL RESISTANT WATER CLOSETS 1

22 4713 VANDAL RESISTANT DRINKING FOUNTAIN 1

DIVISION 23 - HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR-CONDITIONING (HVAC)

23 0500 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR HVAC 1

23 3100 EXHAUST DUCTS 1

23 3300 EXHAUST PENETRATIONS 1

23 3423 EXHAUST FAN 1

23 3447 CEILING FAN 1

23 3600 AIR TERMINALS 1

23 5533 RADIANT CEILING HEATER 1

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 0500 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR ELECTRICAL 3

26 0519 LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUCTORS AND CABLES 4

26 0526 GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 3

26 0529 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 4

26 0533 RACEWAY AND BOXES FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 7

26 0553 IDENTIFICATION FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 5

26 0923 LIGHTING CONTROL DEVICES 5

26 2200 LOW-VOLTAGE TRANSFORMERS 3

26 2416 PANELBOARDS 6

26 2726 WIRING DEVICES 3

26 2813 FUSES 2

26 2816 ENCLOSED SWITCHES AND CIRCUIT BREAKERS 3

26 5100 INTERIOR LIGHTING 4

26 5600 EXTERIOR LIGHTING 6

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 1000 SITE CLEARING 3

31 2200 GRADING 4

31 2316 EXCAVATION 3

31 2323 FILL 4

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 8423 UNDERGROUND SPRINKLERS 2

32 9119 LANDSCAPE GRADING 2

32 9223 SODDING 1

32 9300 PLANTS 2

22054 - Deseret Peaks - Phase 4, Tooele County

Project Information 00 0102 - 1

SECTION 00 0102

PROJECT INFORMATION

PART 1 GENERAL

1.01 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

A. Project Name: 22054 - Deseret Peaks - Phase 4, Tooele County, at: 930 UT-112; Grantsville, Utah 84029.

B. Architect's Project Number: 22-054.30.

C. Project Address:

930 UT-112.

Grantsville, Utah 84029.

D. The Owner, hereinafter referred to as Owner: Tooele County Parks and Recreation; 930 UT-112; Grantsville, Utah 84029.

E. Owner's Project Manager: MOCA Services; 17 Exchange Place; Salt Lake City, Utah 84111.

1.02 NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS

A. These documents constitute an Invitation to Bid to and request for qualifications from General Contractors for the construction of the project described below.

1.03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Summary Project Description: Phase IV expands the Complex’s recreational and event infrastructure and includes the development of additional athletic facilities, supporting amenities, equestrian infrastructure, parking, roadway access, trail connectivity, and a future RV park area, all consistent with the adopted Master Plan..

B. Contract Terms: Lump sum (fixed price, stipulated sum).

1.04 PROJECT CONSULTANTS

A. The Architect, hereinafter referred to as Architect: Think Architecture, Inc..

1. Address: 7927 So. Highpoint Parkway, Suite 300.

2. City, State, Zip: Salt lake City, Utah 84094.

3. Phone/Fax: (801) 269-0055.

1.05 PROCUREMENT TIMETABLE

A. RFP Documents Available: 4/27/2026.

B. Pre-Bid Briefing: 5/4/2026 at 2:00 PM MST.

1. Meet at Peaks Sports Conference Center C. Pre-Bid Site Tour: 5/4/2026 at 2:00 PM MST.

D. Last Request for Substitution Due: 7 days prior to due date of bids.

E. Last Request for Information Due: 7 days prior to due date of bids.

F. Anticipated Bid Due Date: 5/20/2026, before 2 PM local time.

G. Bid Opening: Same day, 5 PM local time.

H. Notice to Proceed: Anticipated Within 30 days after interview date.

I. Desired Construction Start: Not later than 14 calendar days after Notice to Proceed.

J. Desired Construction Period: Owner prefers a construction period of 150 - 180 calendar days, but is relying on the bidding contractors to provide a proposed schedule with bid.

1. Contractor to provide proposed construction schedule for Bid Package #1 and seperate schedule adjustments for Bid Package #1 alternate packages if selected by the Owner

2. Contractor to provide proposed construction schedule for Bid Package #2 and seperate schedule adjustments for Bid Package #2 alternate packages if selected by the Owner.

K. The Owner reserves the right to change the schedule or terminate the entire procurement process at any time.

Project Information 00 0102 - 2

1.06 PROCUREMENT DOCUMENTS

A. Availability of Documents: Complete sets of procurement documents may be obtained:

1. From Owner at Utah Public Procurement Place (U3P);

https://utah.bonfirehub.com/portal/?tab=openOpportunities.

B. Documents may be viewed at Utah Public Procurement Place (U3P);

https://utah.bonfirehub.com/portal/?tab=openOpportunities.

1.07 BID SECURITY

A. Bids shall be accompanied by a security deposit as follows:

1. Bid Bond of a sum no less than 5 percent of the Bid Amount on AIA A310 Bid Bond Form.

2. Security made payable to Owner in an amount of five percent of proposer's maximum proposal price.

PART 2 PRODUCTS - NOT USED

PART 3 EXECUTION - NOT USED

END OF SECTION 00 0102

Available Project Information 00 3100 - 1

SECTION 00 3100

AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

PART 1 GENERAL

1.01 EXISTING CONDITIONS

A. Certain information relating to existing surface and subsurface conditions and structures is available to bidders and e part of Contract Documents, as follows:

B. Geotechnical Report: Entitled Geotechnical Investigation for Deserek Peaks Phase IV, dated March 31, 2026 prepared by Intermountain GeoEnviromental Services Inc (IGES).

1. Original copy is available for inspection at Owner's offices during normal business hours.

2. A copy of the report in included after this Section.

3. This report identifies properties of below grade conditions and offers recommendations for the design of foundations, prepared primarily for the use of Architect, Civil Engineer and Landscape Architect as well as the Contractor and their Sub Contractors.

4. The recommendations described in the report include Earthwork Recommendations, Foundation Recommendations, Moisture protection and Drainange Recommendations, Pavement Recommendations and Concrete Recommendations and shall be construed as a requirement of this Contract, unless specifically referenced in Contract Documents.

5. This report, by its nature, cannot reveal all conditions that exist on the site. Should subsurface conditions be found to vary substantially from this report, changes in the design and construction of foundations will be made, with resulting credits or expenditures to the Contract Price accruing to Owner.

1.02 PERMITS

A. Owner has obtained the following permits and/or approvals, that are required to be secured prior to commencement of construction work on this project:

1. Site work Permit.

2. Demolition Permit.

PART 2 PRODUCTS - NOT USED

PART 3 EXECUTION - NOT USED

END OF SECTION 00 3100

Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Services Inc.

2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10, South Salt Lake, Utah 84119 ~ T: (801) 270-9400

IGES, Inc., 2026

March 31, 2026

Tooele County Parks & Recreation c/o Mr. Corey Bullock 47 South Main Street Tooele, UT 84074

Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Deseret Peaks Phase IV Soccer Complex

Grantsville, Utah IGES Job No. 04424-003

Dear Mr. Bullock:

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed soccer development within the Deseret Peaks Complex in Grantsville, Utah. The purpose of the investigations was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and provide design and construction recommendations as they relate to the proposed construction. This report has been prepared to summarize the field investigation program, laboratory testing program and engineering analysis as they relate to the proposed site improvements. The work was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated February 15, 2026.

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

Based on a concept drawing prepared by Think Architecture titled Test Pit Locations dated February 20, 2026, the project includes development of a 40-acre site in Grantsville, Utah. The approximate location of the site is shown in Figure A-1. The proposed improvements consist of 8 soccer fields, parking lots, RV parking and a barn. The soccer fields will surround the parking and RV stalls, and the barn will be located to the south of the soccer fields. Loading information for the barn and other proposed structures was not available at the time of this report. We have assumed that all structures are planned to be supported on conventional spread footings.

FIELD INVESTIGATION

Characterization of the general subsurface conditions at the project site was undertaken with fifteen exploratory test pits. Investigation locations were selected by IGES representatives and were field located using existing features. Explorations were advanced in areas accessible to the equipment and clear of marked utilities. Prior to the field program a Blue Stakes of Utah request was submitted to delineate public utilities. A summary of the explorations performed to date is presented in Table 1. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown in Figure A-3.

Geotechnical Investigation

Deseret Peaks Phase IV Soccer Complex

Grantsville, Utah

TEST PIT EXCAVATIONS

Fifteen test pit excavations (designated TP-01 through TP-15) were performed between March 4 and March 6, 2026, to depths ranging from 10 to 12 feet. The test pits were excavated by Tooele County Parks and Recreation staff utilizing a County owned, rubber-tired backhoe. A summary of the explorations is presented in Table 1. The approximate location of each exploration is shown on Figure A-3 in Appendix A.

An IGES representative observed the explorations, logged the explorations in general accordance with ASTM D4220 and prepared the graphical subsurface logs presented in Figures B-1 through B-15. A key to the soil symbols and terminology is shown in Figure B-16. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a hand sampler and brass tubes, while disturbed bulk samples were collected in sealed bags and buckets. Soil samples were packaged in sealed containers and transported in general accordance with ASTM D4220 to the IGES geotechnical laboratory in South Salt Lake City for additional engineering review and testing. Upon completion, tests pit excavations were backfilled with the removed material with minimal compactive effort.

Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Explorations

Field Exploration Total Depth of

Exploration

(feet)

Encountered Groundwater Depth

(feet)

TP-01 10.0 Not Encountered

TP-02 12.0 Not Encountered

TP-03 10.0 Not Encountered

TP-04 12.0 Not Encountered

TP-05 12.0 Not Encountered

TP-06 12.0 Not Encountered

TP-07 12.0 Not Encountered

TP-08 12.0 Not Encountered

TP-09 10.0 Not Encountered

TP-10 10.0 Not Encountered

TP-11 12.0 Not Encountered

TP-12 12.0 Not Encountered

TP-13 10.0 Not Encountered

TP-14 10.0 Not Encountered

TP-15 12.0 Not Encountered

Source: Compiled by IGES in 2026

LABORATORY PROGRAM

Geotechnical laboratory tests were conducted by IGES on relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples obtained during the field investigation. The laboratory testing program was designed to evaluate the engineering characteristics of on-site earth materials. Laboratory tests conducted during this investigation included the following:

Index Testing o In situ Moisture Content and Unit Weight (ASTM D7263 and D2216) o Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) o Particle-Size Analysis (ASTM D6913)

Compaction Testing o Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil (Modified Effort, ASTM D1557)

Subgrade Support o California Bearing Ratio (CBR, ASTM D1883)

Soil Strength Testing o Drained Direct Shear (ASTM D3080)

Corrosion Potential o Sulfate (ASTM C1580) o Chloride (ASTM D4327) o pH (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] T289) o Electrical Resistivity (AASHTO T288)

Selected results have been presented on the attached boring logs in Appendix B. The full results of the laboratory testing are provided in Appendix C.

GENERALIZED SITE CONDITOINS

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The property appears to be mostly undeveloped land that is currently being used for stockpiling soils from other Deseret Peaks projects. To the east and south of the field there are abandoned stables that will be demolished prior to construction of the soccer complex based on plans provided.

SOIL

In each test pit exploration, the native soils consisted of moist, soft, fine-grained soils with trace amounts of sand and gravel in some locations. In general, the fine-grained soils were low-plasticity (lean) clays, but in certain areas, high-plasticity (fat) clays and silts were encountered. These soils are typical of what is expected based on previous explorations conducted elsewhere at the Deseret Sports Complex.

GROUNDWATER

Soils were typically moist, but groundwater was not encountered in any of the explorations performed during this investigation. Groundwater depth is likely to vary seasonally and annually with changes in precipitation, runoff, development, and other atmospheric conditions, but is not expected to impact shallow excavations at the site; mapping performed by Harty and Black (1995) shows that groundwater is expected to be at a depth of at least 50 feet below the existing surface.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the preliminary project plans, the subsurface conditions observed during field exploration, the results of in-situ and laboratory soil testing and our engineering analyses. At the time of the exploration, limited details regarding the proposed construction including the size and type of structures for the barn was not available. It is possible that variations in the soil and groundwater conditions exist between and beyond the points explored. The nature and extent of the variations may not be evident until construction occurs, and additional explorations/excavations are completed. If subsurface conditions other than those described herein are encountered in conjunction with construction, and/or if design and layout changes are initiated, our firm should be informed so that the recommendations herein can be reviewed and revised as changes or conditions may require.

EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

Site Preparation

Following rough grading of foundation, slab and pavement areas, the exposed subgrade should be reviewed by a trained technician working under a geotechnical engineer familiar with the recommendations of this report. The exposed subgrade should be proof rolled by a minimum 10-ton static soil compactor (tri-axle dump truck loaded with site soil, large water trucks, graders are also typically acceptable at the discretion of the reviewer) in the presence of a trained soils technician. Yielding or otherwise unsuitable material such as loose granular soil, soft fine-grained soil, soils containing pinholes, frozen soils, expansive soil, construction debris or waste, soils containing organics or debris laden fill should be removed in their entirety and replaced with structural fill in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Site grading should be designed to provide positive drainage away from proposed structures. Positive site drainage should be maintained throughout the construction activities.

Subgrade preparation and inspection requirements from governing authorities should take precedence where more stringent.

Sensitive Subgrade

During exploration activities, the subsurface soils generally appeared to be dense or stiff based on the observed excavation effort. However, based on experience with similar soils nearby, subgrade conditions are expected to deteriorate rapidly with prolonged exposure to moisture and/or construction disturbances. Time between final grading and construction should be minimized to reduce the risk for detrimental impacts to the subgrade. If the stability of the subgrade is compromised, it is considered unsuitable and should be removed and replaced with structural fill as described herein.

Subgrade Stabilization

If needed prior to placement and compaction of structural fill, subgrade stabilization can be accomplished by placing a woven geotextile over the soft subgrade; seams should be overlapped a minimum of 18 inches or as recommended by the manufacturer. The geotextile should be covered with a minimum of 18 inches of crushed, angular ¾- to 4-inch diameter drain rock. Structural fill may then be placed and compacted as recommended in this report. The woven geotextile may consist of TenCate Mirafi ® HP570 or an approved substitute. The geotextile should be placed to cover the entire excavation bottom.

Alternatively, stabilization of soft or pumping subgrade can be accomplished using a clean, coarse angular material worked into the soft subgrade. We recommend the material be between 3 and 6 inches in nominal diameter. The stabilization material should be worked (pushed) into the soft subgrade soils until a relatively firm and unyielding surface is established. Once a relatively firm and unyielding surface is achieved, the area may be brought to final design grade using structural fill. Other earth materials not meeting the aforementioned criteria may also be suitable; however, such material should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and should be approved by IGES prior to use. The area should be wheel-rolled with heavy equipment to evaluate whether a firm working surface has been achieved and that soft/pumping soils have been bridged to the extent reasonably possible based on existing subsurface conditions. An IGES representative should be present during this evaluation.

The area of stabilization should extend a minimum of 3 feet beyond structural foundations, at least 5 feet beyond the observed soft spot if in a pavement area, and at least 2 times the depth of fill to be placed in areas of structural fill.

Fill Materials

Fill placed for the support of structures or flatwork should consist of structural fill. Structural fill may consist of approved onsite soils or an approved imported granular soil. Fill materials should be accepted by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific use of the fill. Structural fill should conform with the following requirements:

Granular, well-graded material with a maximum particle size of 4 inches and a fines content between 5 and 15 percent when testing in accordance with ASTM D6913;

Hard, durable particles of stone or gravel; or crushed to the specific sized and gradations; free from organic matter, clay chunks, asphalt, construction debris and other deleterious material;

Material having liquid limit less than 20 and a plasticity index less than 10 when tested in accordance with ASTM D4318;

Non-corrosive to metals, concrete or other building materials

Free of unsuitable material as defined herein.

Fill for material utilized within the pavement section should conform to all applicable materials and construction standards and specifications.

Capillary barrier material or drainage course under floor slabs should consist of hard, durable, clean gravel or crushed rock, with a maximum size of 1-inch containing less than 5 percent material passing the No.

200 sieve.

Fill Placement

Structural fill material shall be placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts. Thinner lifts may be required to achieve adequate compaction depending on the equipment and methods chosen by the contractor. All fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Fill placed on existing fill or slopes steeper than four horizontal to one vertical (4H:1V) should be keyed and benched into firm native soil or properly compacted fill. Keying and benching can be conducted simultaneously with placement and compaction of engineered fill. Width of the benches should be determined based on the necessary width for compaction equipment to adequately fit on the bench, and the corresponding key height is based on width needed. Permanent fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2.5:1.

The width of granular structural fill required at the bottom of footing excavations should be equal to the width of the footing (B) plus one lateral foot for each foot of fill thickness (H) below the footing plus 6 inches on either side of the footing (i.e., minimum width of structural fill is equal to 2H+6 inches+6 inches+B). See Figure 1 below for a detail showing minimum fill width.

Backfill should be placed in even lifts on both sides of foundation walls to prevent excessive pressure on one side. Brace unsupported foundation walls, thoroughly before backfilling and leave bracing in place until supporting floors are in place.

Figure 1 - Minimum Width of Structural Fill

Material should be mechanically compacted to the required maximum dry density and optimum moisture content as indicated in Table 2. Compaction by water injection should not be permitted. Compaction dry of optimum is discouraged.

Table 2: Summary of Compaction Requirements

Backfill Area1 Percent of

Maximum Dry Density2

Moisture Content at Time of

Compaction

Fill beneath footings 95.0

Optimum2 ± 2.0 percent

Wall Backfill 90.0 Landscaped areas 90.0

Untreated Base Course 95.0 Pavement Areas 95.0

Notes:

Required compaction shall be determined considering proposed construction above fill (e.g. foundation walls backfilled beneath a proposed pavement area must be compacted to pavement area specification)

As determined by ASTM D1557

Source: Compiled by IGES in 2026

Reuse of Onsite Material as Fill

It is not expected that the project will generate an excess of soils from cutting activities. The majority of near-surface onsite soils appear to have a high fines content and, in our opinion, are generally unsuitable for re-use as structural fill due to the anticipated effort required for moisture conditioning and compaction. If the contractor desires to re-use these soils for specific applications on the project, they should justify the suitability of the onsite material for use as fill, outlining appropriate means and methods for moisture-conditioning and compaction of native soils and receiving approval from the geotechnical engineer prior to placement. Moisture conditioning and placement of fine-grained fill will be near impossible in winter months.

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Bearing Capacity

Shallow spread or continuous wall footings on competent native subgrade or compacted structural fill overlying competent native earth materials, may be proportioned utilizing a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead load plus live load conditions. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third for short-term loading (wind and seismic). The minimum recommended footing width is 20 inches for continuous wall footings and 30 inches for isolated spread footings.

Foundation Burial Depth and Size

Each conventional foundations exposed to the full effects of frost should be established at a minimum depth of 30 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Interior footings, not subjected to the full effects of frost (i.e., a continuously heated structure), may be established at shallower depths, however, a minimum depth of embedment of 18 inches is recommended for confinement purposes. The minimum recommended footing width is 20 inches for strip (i.e. wall, continuous) footings and 30 inches for isolated spread footings.

Installation

All foundations exposed to the full effects of frost should be established at a minimum depth of 30 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. All spread footings should be a minimum of 3 feet in width and continuous footings should be a minimum of 2 feet in width. Under no circumstances should foundations or structures be established upon unsuitable materials. Footings should not be founded upon more than one type of engineered fill or native soil or a combination of engineered fill and native soil. If unsuitable materials are encountered at footing or structural elevations, these materials should be removed in their entirety and replaced with compacted granular structural fill or lean concrete.

MOISTURE PROTECTION AND DRAINAGE

During construction, over-wetting the soils prior to, during or after construction may result in softening and pumping, causing equipment mobility problems and difficulty in achieving compaction. Every effort should be taken to ensure positive drainage away from construction areas. The recommended minimum slope is two percent in pavement areas. Moisture should not be allowed to infiltrate the soils in the vicinity of, or upslope from, the construction area. Moisture should not be allowed to accumulate in the construction area.

To aid in maintaining surficial slope stability, we recommend that a water interceptor swale be constructed at the top of all engineered slopes. This swale should be designed to intercept all uphill slope drainage and divert the drainage around the slopes. The drainage should be controlled as it travels around the slopes and should be tied into the appropriate site runoff management system.

Following construction, moisture should not be allowed to infiltrate into the soils in the vicinity of the foundations. Design strategies to minimize ponding and infiltration near the structures should be implemented. To this end, we recommend the following:

Desert or Xeriscape landscaping should be considered within 5 feet of foundations.

Rain gutters should be installed around the entire structure to capture and direct all runoff a minimum of 10 feet away from structures.

Irrigation valves should be placed a minimum of 5 feet from foundations.

The ground surface within 10 feet of structures should be constructed so as to slope a minimum of five percent away from the structures.

Pavement sections should be constructed to divert surface water away from the pavement into storm drains.

Parking strips and roadway shoulder areas should be constructed to prevent infiltration of water into the areas surrounding pavement.

SOIL CHEMISTRY

Samples were tested for soil resistivity, soluble chloride and pH to evaluate the corrosion potential for ferrous metal in contact with onsite soil and tested for soluble sulfates to evaluate the potential for sulfate attack of cementitious concrete. A summary of typical indicators for a soil’s corrosion potential to concrete and metals is presented in the tables below.

Table 3: Sulfate Based Corrosion Potential Indicator for Concrete

Soluble Sulfates

Range (ppm) Corrosion Potential Recommended Cement Type

0 – 150 Low I, II, V 150 – 1000 Moderate II, V

1000 – 2000 Severe V > 2000 Very Severe V

Table 4: Chloride Based Corrosion Potential Indicators for Metals

Soluble Chlorides

Range (ppm) Corrosion Potential

0 – 200 Low 200 – 700 Moderate

700 – 1,500 Severe > 1,500 Very Severe

Table 5: Resistivity Based Corrosion Potential Indicators for Metals

Electric Resistivity

Range (Ω-cm) Corrosion Potential

> 30,000 Low or Noncorrosive 30,000 – 10,000 Mild 10,000 – 2,000 Moderate

2,000 – 500 Severe 500 – 0 Very Severe

Additionally, a pH greater than 9 or less than 5 may indicate a problem soil. The completed results of the corrosion testing for soils along with the associated corrosion potentials are presented in Table 6 and in Appendix C.

Table 6: Corrosion Potential Indicator Testing Summary

Sample Corrosion Potential Indicator

Exploration Depth (ft) pH Sulfate

Potential Chloride Potential

Electrical Resistivity

TP-02 4.0 8.4 Severe Severe Very Severe TP-05 1.0 8.1 Low Low Severe TP-08 1.0 8.1 Severe Very Severe Very Severe TP-10 2.0 8.0 Moderate Moderate Severe TP-12 1-4 8.7 Low Low Severe TP-13 1-2 7.8 Moderate Moderate Very Severe TP-15 1-2 8.3 Low Low Severe

Source: Compiled by IGES in 2026

Based on limited testing, site soils exhibit a low to severe potential for sulfate attack to concrete and a low to very severe potential for chloride attack to steel while resistivity testing results indicated that the soils at the site are severely to very severely corrosive to steel.

Corrosion protection based on the above results should be considered for any buried elements of the proposed project including the use of specialized coatings and sacrificial steel thicknesses depending on the nature and criticality of the specific element. Designers of structures with steel reinforcement should consider the corrosive nature of site soils in design. Where it is not practicable to minimize the use of buried steel, we recommend that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted for any metals that are to be embedded at the site.

PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Pavement Design

Flexible pavement sections were analyzed for proposed structure. No information was available for expected traffic loads, but pavement areas were assumed to have regular passenger vehicles and occasional heavyweight trucks/trailers resulting in targets of approximately 35,000 flexible equivalent single axel loadings (ESALs) over a 20-yr design life. The pavement section was analyzed using the Tooele County Engineering Department Pavement Section Standards (2021), and the pavement design software WinPAS 12 from the American Concrete Pavement Association which uses the AASHTO 1993 flexible pavement design methodology. The parameters utilized are presented in Table 7.

Table 7: Summary of Pavement Analysis

Analysis Parameter Hot Mix Asphalt

Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 1.5

Target Reliability (percent) 75 Standard Deviation 0.45

Subgrade Resilient Modulus1 (psi) ~9,390 Design Life (years) 20

Notes:

1) Based on laboratory tested minimum CBR value of 10

Source: Compiled by IGES in 2026

The hot mix asphalt (or concrete) and untreated base course are predicted to accommodate the assumed loading however, much of the subgrade at the site is fine grained and likely frost susceptible. Removal of this material, and backfilling with less frost suspectable material such as approved non frost susceptible (free-draining) granular borrow will likely be an effective mitigation technique against frost degradation of the pavement. In general, it is recommended replacing frost susceptible material to 70 percent of the frost depth for pavement construction. At the site, the total depth of replacement for improved frost protection would be 21 inches. An increased engineered fill thickness also would represent improved long-term performance of the pavement. If the owner accepts the risk of frost damage to the pavement, the fine-grained subgrade may be left in place. The recommended pavement sections are presented in Table 8.

Table 8: Summary of Pavement Sections

Pavement Usage

Minimum Layer Thickness (inches)

Flexible

Hot Mix Asphalt Untreated Base Course Granular Sub-Base

Tooele County Default Section

3 6 7

Source: Compiled by IGES in 2026

Materials

Imported granular subbase should be a minimum AASHTO A-1-a classification and minimum CBR of 25.

UTBC should be a well graded granular material, with a minimum AASHTO A-1 classification and minimum CBR of 50. Asphalt has been assumed to be a high stability plant mix and should be compacted to a minimum of 96 percent of the Marshall maximum density before excessive cooling takes place. All materials should conform to applicable local requirements where more stringent.

CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND APPROVAL

Our geotechnical design recommendations are based on a limited site investigation and laboratory testing. Depending on subsurface conditions encountered during construction, field adjustments to subgrade preparation recommendations contained in this report may be required. We recommend that adequately trained personnel observe geotechnical construction aspects of the project for compliance with design concepts, specifications, and recommendations, and to assist in development of design changes should subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. Specifically, subgrade preparation for all foundation and pavement areas should be observed by IGES to determine if additional over excavation is required prior to placement of structural fills and concrete.

CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS

The concept of risk is a significant consideration of geotechnical analyses. The analytical means and methods used in performing geotechnical analyses and development of resulting recommendations do not constitute an exact science. Analytical tools used by geotechnical engineers are based on limited data, empirical correlations, engineering judgment, and experience. As such, the solutions and resulting conclusions and recommendations presented in this report cannot be considered risk-free and constitute IGES’s best professional opinions and recommendations based on the available data and other design information available at the time they were developed. IGES has developed the preceding analyses, recommendations and opinions, at a minimum, in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices and care being exercised in the project area at the time our services were performed. No warrantees, guarantees or other representations are made.

The information contained in this report is based on limited field data and understanding of the project.

If any conditions are encountered at this site that are different from those described in this report, IGES must be immediately notified so that we may make any necessary revisions to recommendations and opinions contained in this report. In addition, if the scope of the proposed construction or grading changes from those described in this report, our firm must also be notified.

This report was prepared for our client’s exclusive use on the project identified in the foregoing. Use of the data, recommendations, opinions or design information contained herein for any other project or development of the site not as specifically described in this report is at the user’s sole risk and without the approval of IGES, Inc. It is the client's responsibility to see that all parties to the project including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc. are made aware of this report in its entirety.

We recommend that IGES be retained to review the final design plans, grading plans and specifications to determine if our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated in the project development documents. We also recommend that IGES be retained to evaluate, construction performance and other geotechnical aspects of the projects as construction initiates, continues and progresses through its completion

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions regarding the report or wish to discuss additional services, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience.

Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, IGES, Inc.

Remy Thigpen, E.I.T. Jared Hawes, P.E.

Staff Engineer Principal Engineer

Attachments:

Appendix A

Figure A-1 Site Vicinity Map

Figures A-2a,b Regional Geology Map

Figure A-3 Exploration Map

Appendix B

Figures B-1 to B-15 Test Pit Logs

Figures B-16 Key to Soil Symbols and Terminology

Appendix C

Laboratory Results

03/31/2026

REFERENCES

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), ASCE 7 Hazard Tool, https://asce7hazardtool.online/.

———, 2017, ASCE Standard 7-22 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.

———, 2018, Supplement 1 for Standard 7-22, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.

Clark, D.L., Oviatt, C.G., and Dinter, D.A., 2020, Geologic Map of the Tooele 30’X60’ Quadrangle, Tooele, Salt Lake, and Davis Counties, Utah Geological Survey Map 284DM Plate 1.

Fang, H. Y., 1991, Foundation Engineering Handbook, Second Addition.

Gerber, F.A. and Harmse, H.J.V.M., 1987, Proposed Procedure for Identification of Dispersive Soils by Chemical Testing, Development Bank of Southern Africa Technical Paper.

Harty, K.M. and Black, B.D., 1995, Rock-fall Hazard and Depth to Ground Water, Tooele Quadrangle, Tooele County, Utah, Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 318 Plate 4H.

International Code Council (ICC), 2021, 2021 International Building Code (IBC).

United States Geological Survey (USGS), Unified Hazard Tool, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/.

Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center [AGRC]. State Geographic Information Database.

https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utah-shallow-ground-water?geometry=- 129.193%2C36.996%2C-93.903%2C42.001. Accessed April 2021.

Utah Geologic Survey, 2019, Utah Quaternary Fault and Fold Database, https://geology.utah.gov/apps/qfaults/index.html.

Utah Geological Survey, 2021, Geologic Hazards Mapping and Data Custom Report, sites specific report generated on 9/1/2021 from UGS website: http://geology.utah.gov/apps/hazards/report.

Appendix A

Maps

SH

EE

P

LN

U-112

IGES Project #:

FIG

U

R E

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

DESERET PEAK PHASE IV SOCCER COMPLEX

GRANTSVILLE, UTAH

SITE VICINITY MAP

A -1

PROJECT AREAREFERENCE: UGRC AERIAL IMAGERY 2022

04424-003

\\SLC-DC16\COM

PANY\PROJECTS\04424 TOOELE COUNTY PARKS & REC\003 DESERET PEAKS PHASE IV SOCCER COM

PLEX\DRAW

INGS\AUTOCAD\04424-003 M

APPING.DW

G

3/19/2026

BY: REM

YT

Feet 1:1000

200010000 500

SH

EE

P

LN

U-112

IGES Project #:

FIG

U

R

E REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP

A -2a

REFERENCE: GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE TOOELE 30' X 60'

QUADRANGLE, TOOELE, SALT LAKE, AND DAVIS

COUNTIES, UTAH

\\SLC-DC16\COM

PANY\PROJECTS\04424 TOOELE COUNTY PARKS & REC\003 DESERET PEAKS PHASE IV SOCCER COM

PLEX\DRAW

INGS\AUTOCAD\04424-003 M

APPING.DW

G

3/19/2026

BY: REM

YT

Feet 1:2000

400020000 1000

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

DESERET PEAK PHASE IV SOCCER COMPLEX

GRANTSVILLE, UTAH

04424-003

PROJECT AREA

IGES Project #:

FIG

U

R

E REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP

A -2b

\\SLC-DC16\COM

PANY\PROJECTS\04424 TOOELE COUNTY PARKS & REC\003 DESERET PEAKS PHASE IV SOCCER COM

PLEX\DRAW

INGS\AUTOCAD\04424-003 M

APPING.DW

G

3/19/2026

BY: REM

YT

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

DESERET PEAK PHASE IV SOCCER COMPLEX

GRANTSVILLE, UTAH

04424-003

TP-01

TP-02

TP-03 TP-04

TP-05 TP-06

TP-07

TP-08

TP-09

TP-10

TP-11

TP-12

TP-13

TP-14

TP-15

IGES Project #:

FIG

U

R

E SITE EXPLORATION PLAN

A -3

\\SLC-DC16\COM

PANY\PROJECTS\04424 TOOELE COUNTY PARKS & REC\003 DESERET PEAKS PHASE IV SOCCER COM

PLEX\DRAW

INGS\AUTOCAD\04424-003 M

APPING.DW

G

3/19/2026

BY: REM

YT

REFERENCE: GOOGLE EARTH AERIAL

IMAGERY 2022

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

DESERET PEAK PHASE IV SOCCER COMPLEX

GRANTSVILLE, UTAH

04424-003

TEST PIT LOCATION

PROJECT AREA

Feet 0 200 400

Appendix B

Exploration Logs

Deseret Peaks Phase IV Soccer Complex

TP-01

Drilling Co.: Tooele County Parks and

Operator: Tooele County

Logged By: Remy Thigpen

Equipment: CAT 420E IT

Project No.: 04424-003

Date Drilled: 03/04/2026

Boring Depth: 10.0'

Boring Elevation: 4441.09'

Remarks:

Coordinates: 40.575353, -112.373397

Location Accuracy:

Estimated from Google

Groundwater Encountered at None elev depth

(ft)

4436.09

4431.09

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

G ra ph ic

L og

U

SC

S

SC

CL

Visual Classification and Remarks

Clayey SAND, loose, dry, brown, Grass and roots present

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown, Blocky structure

LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown, Blocky structure

LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown, Blocky structure

Bottom of Test Pit at 10 Feet No Groundwater Encountered

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

12.9

19.2

22.0

D ry

D en si ty

(P C

F)

100.3

F in es

At te rb er g Li m its

(L

L-

PL

-P I)

29-17-12

40-20-20

Graphics Legend

SC

CL

Tube

Grab

FIGURE

B-1

IGES | 2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10 | South Salt Lake, Utah | 801-270-9400 | www.IGESinc.com

TP-02

Drilling Co.: Tooele County Parks and

Operator: Tooele County

Logged By: Remy Thigpen

Equipment: CAT 420E IT

Project No.: 04424-003

Date Drilled: 03/04/2026

Boring Depth: 12.0'

Boring Elevation: 4447.84'

Remarks:

Coordinates: 40.575192, -112.370767

Location Accuracy:

Estimated from Google

(ft)

4442.84

4437.84

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

G ra ph ic

L og

U

SC

S

CL

Visual Classification and Remarks

Sandy LEAN CLAY, medium stiff, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, medium stiff, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, soft, moist, brown

LEAN CLAY, soft, moist, brown

LEAN CLAY, soft, moist, brown

Bottom of Test Pit at 12 Feet No Groundwater Encountered

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

20.8

17.5

D ry

D en si ty

(P C

F)

85.6

F in es

89.4

At te rb er g Li

PL

-P I)

35-19-16

Graphics Legend

CL

Tube

Bulk

FIGURE

B-2

IGES | 2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10 | South Salt Lake, Utah | 801-270-9400 | www.IGESinc.com

TP-03

Drilling Co.: Tooele County Parks and

Operator: Tooele County

Logged By: Remy Thigpen

Equipment: CAT 420E IT

Project No.: 04424-003

Date Drilled: 03/04/2026

Boring Depth: 10.0'

Boring Elevation: 4438.14'

Remarks:

Coordinates: 40.574845, -112.374401

Location Accuracy:

Estimated from Google

(ft)

4433.14

4428.14

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

G ra ph ic

L og

U

SC

S

ML

CL

Visual Classification and Remarks

Sandy SILT, soft, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, grey

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, grey

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, grey

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, grey

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, grey

Bottom of Test Pit at 10 Feet No Groundwater Encountered

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

11.4

17.6

D ry

D en si ty

(P C

F)

101.6

F in es

69.3

At te rb er g Li

PL

-P I)

23-20-3

36-19-17

Graphics Legend

ML

CL

Bulk

Tube

FIGURE

B-3

IGES | 2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10 | South Salt Lake, Utah | 801-270-9400 | www.IGESinc.com

TP-04

Drilling Co.: Tooele County Parks and

Operator: Tooele County

Logged By: Remy Thigpen

Equipment: CAT 420E IT

Project No.: 04424-003

Date Drilled: 03/04/2026

Boring Depth: 12.0'

Boring Elevation: 4439.98'

Remarks:

Coordinates: 40.574876, -112.372697

Location Accuracy:

Estimated from Google

(ft)

4434.98

4429.98

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

G ra ph ic

L og

U

SC

S

SC

CL

Visual Classification and Remarks

Clayey SAND with Gravel, loose, moist, brown and subrounded

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Bottom of Test Pit at 12 Feet No Groundwater Encountered

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

14.4

12.2

D ry

D en si ty

(P C

F)

98.4

F in es

At te rb er g Li

PL

-P I)

36-20-16

Graphics Legend

SC

CL

Bulk

Tube

FIGURE

B-4

IGES | 2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10 | South Salt Lake, Utah | 801-270-9400 | www.IGESinc.com

TP-05

Drilling Co.: Tooele County Parks and

Operator: Tooele County

Logged By: Remy Thigpen

Equipment: CAT 420E IT

Project No.: 04424-003

Date Drilled: 03/04/2026

Boring Depth: 12.0'

Boring Elevation: 4436.83'

Remarks:

Coordinates: 40.574303, -112.375467

Location Accuracy:

Estimated from Google

(ft)

4431.83

4426.83

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

G ra ph ic

L og

U

SC

S

CH

GC

CL

Visual Classification and Remarks

4.5

Sandy FAT CLAY, stiff, moist, grey

Clayey GRAVEL, loose, moist, brown and angular to subrounded

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Bottom of Test Pit at 12 Feet No Groundwater Encountered

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

24.6

14.4

19.4

D ry

D en si ty

(P C

F)

86.2

F in es

At te rb er g Li

PL

-P I)

51-21-30

38-20-18

Graphics Legend

CH

GC

CL

Grab

B-5

IGES | 2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10 | South Salt Lake, Utah | 801-270-9400 | www.IGESinc.com

TP-06

Drilling Co.: Tooele County Parks and

Operator: Tooele County

Logged By: Remy Thigpen

Equipment: CAT 420E IT

Project No.: 04424-003

Date Drilled: 03/04/2026

Boring Depth: 12.0'

Boring Elevation: 4439.11'

Remarks:

Coordinates: 40.574450, -112.373327

Location Accuracy:

Estimated from Google

(ft)

4434.11

4429.11

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

G ra ph ic

L og

U

SC

S

CL

CH

Visual Classification and Remarks

LEAN CLAY with Sand, loose, moist, brown, gravel is up to 1-inch diameter max and rounded

LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

LEAN CLAY, soft, moist, grey

Sandy LEAN CLAY, soft, moist, grey

Sandy FAT CLAY, soft, moist, grey

Bottom of Test Pit at 12 Feet No Groundwater Encountered

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

13.0

20.8

23.4

D ry

D en si ty

(P C

F)

F in es

75.1

94.3

At te rb er g Li

PL

-P I)

44-21-23

51-21-30

Graphics Legend

CL

CH

Grab

Bulk

FIGURE

B-6

IGES | 2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10 | South Salt Lake, Utah | 801-270-9400 | www.IGESinc.com

TP-07

Drilling Co.: Tooele County Parks and

Operator: Tooele County

Logged By: Remy Thigpen

Equipment: CAT 420E IT

Project No.: 04424-003

Date Drilled: 03/04/2026

Boring Depth: 12.0'

Boring Elevation: 4440.99'

Remarks:

Coordinates: 40.574445, -112.372004

Location Accuracy:

Estimated from Google

(ft)

4435.99

4430.99

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

G ra ph ic

L og

U

SC

S

CL

Visual Classification and Remarks

LEAN CLAY with Sand, loose, moist, brown, gravel is up to 3/4-inch diameter max and subrounded

Sandy LEAN CLAY, medium stiff, moist, brown

LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Bottom of Test Pit at 12 Feet No Groundwater Encountered

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

13.2

18.1

D ry

D en si ty

(P C

F)

102.3

F in es

75.1

At te rb er g Li

PL

-P I)

31-19-12

Graphics Legend

CL

B-7

IGES | 2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10 | South Salt Lake, Utah | 801-270-9400 | www.IGESinc.com

TP-08

Drilling Co.: Tooele County Parks and

Operator: Tooele County

Logged By: Remy Thigpen

Equipment: CAT 420E IT

Project No.: 04424-003

Date Drilled: 03/04/2026

Boring Depth: 12.0'

Boring Elevation: 4444.96'

Remarks:

Coordinates: 40.574336, -112.371231

Location Accuracy:

Estimated from Google

(ft)

4439.96

4434.96

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

G ra ph ic

L og

U

SC

S

SC

CL

Visual Classification and Remarks

Clayey SAND, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, soft, moist, brown

Sandy LEAN CLAY, soft, moist, brown

LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, greenish grey

LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, brown

Bottom of Test Pit at 12 Feet No Groundwater Encountered

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

21.5

18.4

28.7

D ry

D en si ty

(P C

F)

99.4

F in es

97.6

At te rb er g Li

PL

-P I)

37-20-17

47-21-26

Graphics Legend

SC

CL

Tube

Grab

B-8

IGES | 2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10 | South Salt Lake, Utah | 801-270-9400 | www.IGESinc.com

TP-09

Drilling Co.: Tooele County Parks and

Operator: Tooele County

Logged By: Remy Thigpen

Equipment: CAT 420E IT

Project No.: 04424-003

Date Drilled: 03/04/2026

Boring Depth: 12.0'

Boring Elevation: 4440.31'

Remarks:

Coordinates: 40.573981, -112.374374

Location Accuracy:

Estimated from Google

(ft)

4435.31

4430.31

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

G ra ph ic

L og

U

SC

S

CL

Visual Classification and Remarks

LEAN CLAY with Sand, soft, moist, brown

LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, grey

LEAN CLAY, hard, dry, grey

Sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, grey

Bottom of Test Pit at 12 Feet No Groundwater Encountered

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

10.0

11.5

13.6

D ry

D en si ty

(P C

F)

85.3

F in es

81.1

At te rb er g Li

PL

-P I)

29-19-10

34-19-15

Graphics Legend

CL

Bulk

Tube

Grab

FIGURE

B-9

IGES | 2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10 | South Salt Lake, Utah | 801-270-9400 | www.IGESinc.com

TP-10

Drilling Co.: Tooele County Parks and

Operator: Tooele County

Logged By: Remy Thigpen

Equipment: CAT 420E IT

Project No.: 04424-003

Date Drilled: 03/05/2026

Boring Depth: 10.0'

Boring Elevation: 4441.42'

Remarks:

Coordinates: 40.573538, -112.373376

Location Accuracy:

Estimated from Google

(ft)

4436.42

4431.42

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

G ra ph ic

L og

U

SC

S

CL

CH

CL

Visual Classification and Remarks

Sandy LEAN CLAY, medium stiff, moist, brown, gravel up to 3/8-inch diameter max and rounded

Sandy LEAN CLAY, soft, moist, brown

Sandy FAT CLAY, soft, moist, grey

Sandy LEAN CLAY, soft, moist, grey

Sandy LEAN CLAY, soft, moist, grey

Bottom of Test Pit at 10 Feet No Groundwater Encountered

Lab

M oi st ur e C on te nt

12.5

31.9

D ry

D en si ty

(P C

F)

F in es

67.7

At te rb er g Li

PL

-P I)

33-17-16

50-22-28

Graphics Legend

CL

CH

Grab - Grab Sample

Bulk - Bulk Sample

B-10

IGES | 2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10 | South Salt Lake, Utah | 801-270-9400 | www.IGESinc.com

TP-11

Drilling Co.: Tooele County Parks and

Operator: Tooele County

Logged By: Remy Thigpen

Equipment: CAT 420E IT

Project No.: 04424-003

Date Drilled: 03/04/2026

Boring Depth: 12.0'

Boring Elevation: 4449.47'

Remarks:

Coordinates: 40.573473, -112.371478

Location Accuracy:

Estimated from Google

(ft)

4444.47

4439.47

Sa m pl e

G ra ph ic

G ra ph ic

L og

U

SC

S

CL

Visual Classification and Remarks

LEAN CLAY with Gravel, soft, dry to moist, brown, gravel up to 3-inch diameter max and rounded

LEAN CLAY with Gravel, soft, dry to moist, brown, gravel up to 3-inch diameter max and rounded

LEAN CLAY with Gravel, medium stiff, moist, brown, gravel up to 1-inch diameter…