140P2021R0004 Amend 0004_0004.pdf

(x)

140P2021R0004 x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR

OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

PDS

Denver CO 80225-0287 P.O. Box 25287 12795 W. Alameda Pkwy DOI, NPS, DSC Contracting Services

PDS

Denver CO 80225-0287 P.O. Box 25287 12795 W. Alameda Pkwy NPS, DSC Contracting Services Div

CEBR 16343204/01/20210004

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

03/05/2021

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

CEBR 163432-CONSTRUCT VISITOR CONTACT STATION

The purpose of Amendment 0004 is to provide the provide Questions and Answers with supporting documents.

SEE Attachments:

(1)Geotechnical Report (2)Revised SECTION 01 9114 TOTAL BUILDING COMMISSIONING (3)Revised Section 03 30 00

(4)SECTION 09 68 00 CARPETING

(5)Revised Contract Price Schedule (6)DWG1.jpg, DWG2.jpg, and DWG3.jpg (7)B08_Solit_Equals.doc

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Bai Perney

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

141P2021R0004 Amendment 0004 (Continuation)

Questions and Answers

Q1. Specification 01 11 00 para 1.11.B stated that a copy of the Geotechnical report was available.

Please provide the geotechnical report.

A1. Geotechnical Report provided as appendix to specifications: Appendix A Geotechnical Report by Yeh and Associates dates August 22, 2019. See attachment 1: “Geotechnical Report”

Q2. Who is responsible for hiring the CxA, NPS or the Contractor? Specification Section 01 91 14 A2. General contractor. See attachment 2: “Revised SECTION 01 9114 – TOTAL BUILDING

COMMISSIONING”

Q3. Detail 8/C5.0 specifies 4" thick asphalt paving. Detail 2/L5.1 specifies 6" asphalt paving. Please clarify.

A3. Per the geotechnical recommendations, the asphalt section should be 4" HMA over 4" ABC.

Q4. Paragraph E, Subfactor 2B ‐ Schedule states to assume a NTP date of March 1, 2021. Please clarify the anticipated date for Notice to Proceed A4. For the purpose of the Subfactor 2B‐Schudule, use Notice to Proceed date of March 1, 2021 for to create your construction schedule.

Q5. Is there any hazardous material (asbestos or lead) present in the existing buildings to be demolished?

A5. No, there is no lead or asbestos present in the existing buildings to be demolished.

Q6. The existing stone veneer and walls are called out to be salvaged. Is the stone to be reused on site or transported somewhere off site by the contractor? Drawings LD2.1 A6. Salvaged stone shall be reused on site. See 02 41 13 spec

Q7. The existing sanitary structure and line to the north of the site is called to be abandoned or removed. Is this an active line? If so what does this line service? There is nothing shown on the new drawings to replace this line. Drawing CD0.2 A7. This is not an active line and that it doesn't currently serve anything, which is why it's not being shown as to be replaced; Park has confirmed.

Q8. Are the trees and other items on the site plan designated for removal by NPS be removed prior to contractor mobilization? Drawing LD2.1 A8. Yes. They have already been removed per Park.

Q9. Spec 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.4 states that 20 CY of soil will be furnished by NPS. Is this topsoil or can it be used as engineered fill? Is it available for this project and from where will the soil need to be retrieved?

A9. This is topsoil, and has not been tested for use as engineered fill. This soil is currently piled at the boneyard 1.4 miles from the construction site.

Q10. Specification Section 03 30 00 Cast‐In‐Place Concrete Part 1.02B references Specification Section 03 35 43 Polished Concrete Finishing. This specification was omitted in the documents. Polished Concrete is required for this project on Sheet A6.1 Finish Schedule. Please provide the specification section or all necessary product data for this scope.

A10. See specification 03 35 11 Concrete Floor Finishes. Section 03 30 00 has been corrected to reference this section. See attachment 3: “Revised Section 03 30 00”

Q11. The Finish Schedule on Sheet A6.1 shows wall finish type CT‐1 in multiple areas. This abbreviation is not defined in the wall finish key. Please confirm that this is ceramic tile specified under Specification Section 09 30 00.

A11. CT‐1 = CERAMIC TILE. This is the same 4x12 ceramic tile as defined in Spec Section 09 30 00 / Part 2 Products / 2.01 Tile

Q12. The Finish Schedule on Sheet A6.1 shows floor type CPT for Carpet in multiple areas. There is no specification section given for carpet. Please provide the specification section or all necessary product data for this scope.

A12. Specification section 09 68 00 has been added. See attachment 4: “SECTION 09 68 00 –

CARPETING”

Q13. Other Submittals section references a "Proposed Equals" Form. The form was not included within the original documents posted to betaSAM. Please reissue the form as an attachment.

A13. See attachment 7: “B08_Solit_Equals.doc”

Q14. Vol. I ‐ Other Submittals references a Subcontracting Plan and Vol II ‐ Business and Price Proposal references a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Only one subcontracting plan was provided as an attachment. Please verify that the same plan can be submitted to meet this requirement for both Volume I and Volume II.

A14. Yes.

Q15. Does the existing restroom building need to remain open for public use during the first summer of construction?

A15. It is assumed that the existing restroom building will be non‐operational during construction.

Q16. In Spec 01 91 14, para. B it states that the lighting protection system is to be commissioned if the bid option is accepted. Please confirm that there is no bid option for lightning protection and that there is no lightning protection scope.

A16. Yes, there is a bid option for lightning protection which can be found on Sheet E0.0.

See attachment 5: “Revised Contract Price Schedule.”

Q17. Paragraph E, Subfactor 2B ‐ Schedule states to assume a NTP date of March 1, 2021. The contract is required to be complete within 530 calendar day after NTP. Based on a March 1 ,2021 NTP, this means the contract completion date is Aug 13, 2022, which allows for only for 2 months of construction in the second construction season due to the limited time during the year that the site is accessible. Can the NTP date be adjusted to a realistic date and the contract duration be adjusted to allow for the full use of 2 construction seasons?

A17. NTP will be adjusted accordingly when the contract is actually awarded and proper documentations required are received. For the purpose of Subfactor 2B ‐ Schedule see A4.

Q18. The Cast in Place spec references “section 03 35 43 – Polished Concrete Finishing”. This spec section however does not appear in the current spec book. Please provide specifications as to the level of polished needed in the project. Specification Section 03 30 00 A18. See specification 03 35 11 Concrete Floor Finishes, see attachment 3. Section 03 30 00 has been corrected to reference this section.

Q19. Plans indicate “polished, stained & sealed concrete” however no specification seems to exists regarding the concrete staining. Please provide direction. Specification Section 03 30 00 A19. "Stained" in the drawings is meant to be integrally colored as described in spec section 03 30 00.

The specification has been modified to clarify this and a section added to cover concrete polishing. See attachment 3.

Q20. Cast in Place spec indicates colored concrete however the plans do not appear to indicate sections where colored concrete is required. Are we to assume that all exposed concrete is to have integral color? Specification Section 03 30 00 A20. Yes, all exposed concrete has integral color. See Section 03 30 00 1.02 for clarifications regarding finish expectations. The specification has been modified to clarify areas with integral color and areas with grey/un‐colored concrete. See attachment 3.

Q21. 2/A2.0 West Elevation depicts the western wall of the toilet building to be standard concrete however the structural cut 2/S5.12 calls that wall to be “board formed”. Please provide guidance as to the exterior finish of this wall. Drawings A2.0 A21. 2/A2.0 the non‐visible, western elevation of the toilet building shall be a standard concrete.

"Board Formed" concrete is not required at this elevation.

Q22. Specification Section 10 14 00 ‐ Signage indicates the requirement for Room and door signs, Interior directional and informational signs, and Emergency evacuation maps. The drawings only give signage design and dimensions for the restrooms. Please clarify if the other interior signage types from the spec are required. If required, provide detail drawings for all sign types.

A22. Reference spec section 10 14 00 / 1.04 Submittal C. Shop Drawings

1. Develop design based on specifications parameters, one for each sign type identified in 2.02B.

2. Allow for two rounds of design review with CO and Park to establish preferred design within budget.

3. Graphics of shop drawings shall be in color and shall accurately represent font and graphics, size and color of proposed design.

The specification directs the contractor to submit design for basic, code‐compliant signage to be approved by CO.

Q23. Specification 01 73 40; 3.2, A ‐1 and Drawing Sheet E0.2 Keynote #3 speak to the replacement of the existing transformer with the new replacement provided by Rocky Mountain Power.

The expenses for the new transformer and the power line connection for the Contact Center (spoken to in Keynote #1) are not the responsibility of the General Contractor?

A23. Yes, expenses for the new transformer and connections will be of the responsibility of the General Contractor. Rocky Mountain Power gave a rough estimate of $10‐12k for the work, however final numbers will need to be coordinated with the utility.

Q24. Specification 01 81 13.13; 1.1 speaks to sustainable design requirements and LEED certification.

This project is not seeking a LEED certification, please confirm?

A24. Confirmed. The project is NOT seeking LEED certification.

Q25. Specification 01 91 14 speaks to the projects ‘Commissioning’ duties and activities.

Are the Commissioning Authorities’ expenses the responsibility of the General Contractor?

A25. Yes. See attachment 2.

Q26. Specification 02 41 13; 3.1, H speaks to the site furnishing removal/salvage by Park.

Please confirm that items listed in H (1 > 4) are handled by the Park Service?

A26. Confirmed.

Q27. Specification 03 30 00; 1.05, A speaks to Installer Qualifications.

The Flatwork Technician and Finisher along with the Supervisor are to be ACI certified?

A27. This is what is stated in the specification, yes. This project has high visibility concrete work, so installer qualifications are critical.

Q28. Specification 0618 00; 2.2 speaks to ‘Timber Connections’ Are the Timber Truss connectors to be painted?

A28. Timber truss connectors to be painted. Color assumed to be black. Final color to be chosen by

CO.

Q29. Drawing Sheet A 6.1 shows the projects finish schedule. Sheets and notes in the drawings speak to Ceramic Tile. Please clarify what size/type of CT is to be installed?

A29. CT‐1 = CERAMIC TILE This is the same 4x12 ceramic tile as defined in Spec Section 09 30 00 / Part 2 Products / 2.01 Tile

Q30. Drawing Sheet E 0.0 contains a ‘Lightning Protection’ boxed note concerning pricing.

Where does NPS wish to see the Bid Option pricing?

A30. See attachment 5.

Q31. Proposed Substitution: Hiny Hiders Solid Plastic, Manufacturer: Scranton Products, Specification Title: Plastic Toilet Compartments, Section: 10 21 13.19 A31. Substitution is acceptable.

Q32. Section B Contract Price Schedule indicates we are required to provide a separate Schedule of Values (SOV) for each line item in the Section B Contract Price Schedule. Is there a specific form or format this should be provided in, or are we free to provide our own cost breakdown structure for this request?

A32. There is no specific form. Schedule of Values should show major work components that will support the contract line item number (CLIN).

Q33. FAR 52.236‐14 states that the contractor shall pay for the amount of each utility service consumed at the prevailing rates charged to the Government. Specification 01 50 00‐1.3‐A states that cost or use charges for temporary facilities shall be included in the Contract Sum. However, Specification 01 50 00‐1.3‐B&C sates that water and electric from existing system is available without metering and without payment of use charges. Please confirm the contractor does not have to pay for utility use charges. If required, please provide the prevailing rates to be charged for each utility.

A33. Water on site is limited to <8K gal per day due to limited supply (tank). Notify CO if approaching that amount per day. Any water brought up to site via truck is assumed to be included in contract sum.

Q34. During the Pre‐Bid meeting, it was mentioned that the roadway North of the construction site (Park Rd 10) was going to be closed off from public access for specific use by contractor personnel (Between Project Site and Boneyard/Staging Area). Please confirm that this is the case, and if so, who will be responsible for traffic control barricades to close off this section of roadway.

A34. The entire roadway (Park Rd 10) shall remain open to all through traffic on the standard annual schedule (closed to all traffic from about mid‐November to about June). The eastern two‐thirds of the Point Supreme Parking lot shall be considered part of the construction zone and closed off from public access for specific use by the contractor. This area will be closed to the public with a construction fence as shown on sheet C3.0. Contractor is responsible for any necessary traffic control related to this construction zone.

Q35. Specification 01 10 00‐1.5‐B‐2 indicates the contractor is responsible for snow clearing within the work area. Please confirm that this is only relative to the area defined by Limits of Construction on Drawing CD0.2 A35. Per Specification 01 11 00 1.5‐I Contractor is responsible for clearing snow within the work area.

This area includes the construction fence boundaries defined in C3.0. Clearing snow is at the discretion of the contractor unless the snow could damage the new construction.

Q36. Please confirm the average annual snow fall per month between the months of May and November.

A36. Average snowfall per month (in inches): May ‐ 12.4; June ‐ 2.4; July ‐ 0; Aug ‐ 0; Sep ‐ 1.5; Oct ‐ 14.1; Nov ‐ 27. Average day of snowfall: May‐4; Jun ‐ 0; Jul ‐ 0; Aug ‐ 0; Sep ‐ 0; Oct ‐ 4; Nov ‐ 6 https://www.google.com/search?q=cedar+breaks+climate

Q37. Specification 01 50 00‐3.2‐D indicates potable water is available onsite from a tank that will supply the building. The drawings do not depict a water storage tank. Does this tank supply water throughout the site and is independent of the new construction? If so, what is the capacity of the storage tank and what is the typical usage per season? If additional water is needed beyond the capacity of the storage tank, who is responsible for this cost?

A37. The potable water mentioned in Specification 01 50 00‐3.2‐D comes from the public water system 11034: Cedar Breaks National Monument. This water system is seasonal, starting up each spring mid‐May and closing each fall. The system is fed by a spring. Water is treated and stored in a 150,000 gallon tank. The system is used throughout the season for all buildings and camping at Cedar Breaks. The water tank is designed to accommodate storage and fire flow. The contractor may use up to 8,000 gallons per day for construction purposes from this source. The contractor is responsible for providing any additional water beyond this use.

Q38. Does NPS utilize a 3rd party vendor for delivering potable water to the site? If so, can you please provide us with the contact information for this vendor?

A38. No water is delivered to the site. All water comes from a spring within Cedar Breaks National Monument.

Q39. The Solicitation indicates NPS's subcontracting goals for Fiscal Year 2021 are 43.25% for Small Business. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan form (B08_Solit_PSP_Vol_II_SubKPlanForm_REQD) identifies Fiscal Year 2020 with a small business goal of 57%. Please confirm the small business goals for this project.

A39. Use subcontracting goals for Fiscal Year 2021 Small Businesses at 43.25%.

Q40. Please provide the Flow Test Report for use in designing the fire suppression system.

A40. During design, the park provided informal test results for design criteria, but no formal flow test was produced. Design criteria is provided, but contractor shall be responsible for producing Flow Test Report to confirm results and for use in designing the fire suppression system.

Q41. Specification 01 50 00‐3.2‐E indicates we are responsible for providing temporary toilet and wash facilities for construction personnel. Please confirm that we are not responsible for providing temporary toilet and wash facilities for the public while the existing restroom building is demolished.

A41. Contractor is not responsible for providing temporary toilet or wash facilities for the public.

Temporary restroom facilities will be provided by the park outside of the construction area.

Q42. Drawing LD2.4 Please provide as‐built drawings for the existing Restroom and Fee Buildings scheduled for demolition.

Q42. Drawings for existing restroom provided. There are no available drawings for the fee booth. The fee booth (built in 1994) is a single room building about 8' x 12' with a flat shed roof (about 10' max height). The only utilities to the building are power and fiber optic. See attachment 6: Existing Restroom.

Final

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Proposed Visitor Center

Cedar Breaks National Monument

Iron County, Utah

Yeh Project No.: 218-539

August 22, 2019

Prepared for:

Anderson Hallas Architects Attn: Anne Cutrell

715 14th Street Golden, CO 80401

Prepared by:

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

1525 Blake Avenue

Glenwood Springs, Colorado 80211

Phone: 970-384-1500 Fax: 970-384-1501 attachment 1-Geotechnical Report i

Table Of Contents

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

1.1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

2. GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 SITE CONDITIONS

2.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

3. SITE INVESTIGATION

3.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING

3.3.1 CLAY, RED-ORANGE WITH LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS

3.3.2 GRAVEL, LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS IN RED-ORANGE CLAY

3.3.3 CLAY AND SAND, WHITE

3.3.4 WEATHERED LIMESTONE

3.4 GROUNDWATER

4. FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

4.1.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATION ON MINIMUM THREE (3) FEET OF ENGINEERED FILL

4.1.2 ADDITIONAL SHALLOW FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.2 DEEP FOUNDATIONS

4.2.1 DRILLED SHAFTS

4.2.2 MICROPILES

4.3 EXTERIOR SLABS

4.4 FLOOR SLAB DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE

6. SITE GRADING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 EXCAVATION AND TRENCH CONSTRUCTION

7. SURFACE DRAINAGE

8. CONCRETE AND CORROSIVITY

9. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

10. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 TRAFFIC LOADING

10.2 RESILIENT MODULUS (MR) OF SUBGRADE DESIGN

10.3 ASPHALT PAVEMENT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS

10.4 HOT MIX ASPHALT TYPE AND BINDER RECOMMENDATIONS

10.5 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION

10.6 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS

11. LIMITATIONS

12. REFERENCES

APPENDICES

i i

List Of Tables

TABLE 1 – ESTIMATED DEPTH OF BEDROCK

TABLE 2 - LPILE PARAMETERS

TABLE 3 - DESIGN EQUIVALENT 18-KIP SINGLE AXLE LOADS (ESALS)

TABLE 4 – PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS

TABLE 5 – RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS

List Of Appendices

DRILL LOGS AND LEGEND .............................................................................................................................. A

LABORATORY RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. B

TRAFFIC CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................................................ C

PAVEMENT DESIGN ....................................................................................................................................... D

Proposed Visitor Center, Cedar Breaks National Monument Iron County, Utah YA Project No. 218-539

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for design and construction of the proposed visitor center at Cedar Breaks National Monument (CEBR) in Iron County, Utah as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The purpose of this study was to evaluate geotechnical characteristics of the on-site soils and provide geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and adjacent pavement and flatwork construction.

The investigation consisted of geologic reconnaissance and exploratory test hole drilling to investigate subsurface conditions. Test hole drilling was observed by a representative of Yeh and Associates. Samples obtained during the field exploration were examined by the project personnel and representative samples were subjected to laboratory testing to evaluate the engineering characteristics of materials encountered. This report summarizes our field investigation, the results of our analyses, and our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed construction, site reconnaissance, subsurface investigation and results of the laboratory testing. Services were performed in general accordance with our proposal to

Anderson Hallas Architects dated December 18, 2018.

1.1 Proposed Construction

According to preliminary site plans provided by the Client, proposed construction will include a one-story visitor center building of approximately 2,400 square feet (sf) with a covered patio/deck of approximately 1,300 sf. An adjacent restroom structure of 850 sf will be connected to the visitor center by an open breezeway. Cuts and fills of up to 5 feet are anticipated for the project. Earth retention may be required for construction of below-grade areas

2. GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Conditions

The site is located at the Cedar Breaks National Monument on Utah Highway 148, approximately 4 miles north of the intersection with Utah Highway 14 on a promontory that overlooks the Amphitheater area in a topographic bowl. The proposed building area is located approximately 150 feet south of the existing Visitor Information Center, a historical log structure constructed in the 1930’s. The proposed building site is bordered on all sides by forested park land. A north-south oriented, paved walking path bisects the proposed building site and the paved parking area is approximately 70 feet to the south. A cliff edge above a drainage is approximately 150 to 200 feet from the northeast edge of the proposed building site and approximately 200 to 400 feet from the north and west edge. Paved and gravel paths are adjacent to the project site. Based on a survey map provided by the client, the elevation at the site is approximately 10,360 feet. The proposed building site is moderately sloping down to the east at an estimated grade of 5 to 8 percent. Vegetation includes native trees, shrubs, wildflowers, and grasses. Scattered patches of snow were visible in shade slopes under tree cover along roadway near parking lot entrance.

2.2 Geologic Setting

Based on the 2006 Cedar Breaks National Monument Geologic Resource Evaluation Report, and the 2004 Utah Geological Survey Geologic Map of the Navajo Lake quadrangle, the project site is located on the Markagunt Plateau in the High Plateaus region of the Colorado Plateau with Cedar Breaks forming the boundary between the Colorado Plateau and the Basin and

Range provinces. The Markagunt Plateau is bounded on the west by the north to northeast trending Hurricane Fault zone, which is considered to be seismically active. The fault zone extends into Cedar Breaks National Monument (CEBR) and can be observed in offset of sedimentary bedding. The project site is located at the south end of CEBR, an area of drainages and erosional amphitheaters approximately 3 miles long and more than a mile wide. These drainages have eroded and shaped the Tertiary age Claron Formation into spires, fins, and canyons. The White Member of the Claron Formation at and near the surface at CEBR is limestone interbedded with mudstone and sandstone as horizontal to slightly dipping up to 3 degrees to the east-southeast. Surficial deposits at the project site include topsoil, clay and sand, and underlying these deposits is the white micritic (lime mud) limestone of the White

Member of the Claron Formation. There is a high potential for karst features in the limestone, including sinkholes, caves, seeps, and springs. Fractures in the Claron Formation in CEBR have been documented by others, and have been listed as a hazard at overlooks, but were not possible to observe below the surface at the building site during this investigation.

3. SITE INVESTIGATION

3.1 Subsurface Investigation

Two borings were drilled on July 18, 2019. Boring locations were suggested and marked at the site by the client as presented on provided plans and adjusted based on known utilities. With respect to the proposed building, Boring B-1 was drilled in the southwest area and Boring B-2 was drilled in the northeast area as access and utilities allowed. Borings B-1 and B-2 were drilled to depths of 17.1 feet and 12.6 feet, respectively. Practical auger drilling refusal was encountered in both borings.

Boring locations are presented in Figure 2. A formal survey was outside the scope of this investigation and borings were located in the field using measurements to existing points.

Borings were advanced using a Simco 2800 truck-mounted drill rig with 4-inch solid stem, continuous flight auger to practical drill rig refusal depth. At selected intervals, a modified

California sampler with a 2-inch interior diameter (ID) and 2.5 inch outside diameter (OD), or a standard split spoon sampler with a 1⅜-inch ID and 2 inch OD were used to record blow counts and obtain samples. The sampler was seated at the bottom of the boring, then advanced by a

140 pound hydraulic automatic, or “auto,” hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows (Blow Count) required to drive the sampler 12 inches or a fraction thereof, constitutes the N-value. The N-value, when properly evaluated, is an index of the consistency or relative density of the material tested. Bulk samples of drill cuttings were also obtained. Boring logs and legend are presented in Appendix A.

3.2 Subsurface Conditions

In general, the subsoils encountered in the borings consisted of approximately 2.8 feet of dark brown topsoil over 5.2 to 5.7 feet of red-orange clay with limestone fragments overlying 3.0 to

4.5 feet of white clay and sand, and underlain by white limestone bedrock. Auger drilling refusal and sampler refusal indicated the probable top of bedrock. Because auger drilling refusal occurred at limited penetration in the bedrock, the competency of the probable limestone bedrock was not determined and actual depths to ‘competent’ bedrock may vary. Table 1 below provides the depths where auger refusal occurred in the borings. Drilling logs can be found in

Appendix A.

Table 1 – Estimated Depth of Bedrock

Boring Number

Estimated Depth to Bedrock

(feet)

B-1 15.5

B-2 11.5

3.3 Laboratory Testing

3.3.1 Clay, Red-Orange with Limestone Fragments

Two red-orange clay with limestone fragments samples were subjected to laboratory testing and had 50 and 63 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve), liquid limits of 32 and 63 percent, and plasticity indices of 16 and 32 percent. Swell/consolidation testing (ASTM D4546) on one of these samples taken at a depth of 2.8 feet exhibited 0.0 percent, or no swelling or collapse upon wetting and an applied pressure of 500 pounds per square foot (psf). These cllay samples classified as CL and CH according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and as A-6 (4) and A-7-5 (19) according to the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

3.3.2 Gravel, Limestone Fragments in Red-Orange Clay

Two clayey gravel samples were subjected to laboratory testing and had 31 percent fines. One sample subjected to Atterberg testing had a liquid limit of 23 percent and a plasticity index of 7 percent. Swell/consolidation testing (ASTM D4546) on the gravel samples taken at a depth of 4 feet exhibited 0.0 percent, or no collapse or swell upon wetting and an applied pressure of 500 psf. These samples classified as GC and as GC-GM (USCS) and as A-2-6 and A-2-4

(AASHTO).

3.3.3 Clay and Sand, White

Two clay and sand samples were subjected to laboratory testing and had 47 and 87 percent fines, liquid limits of 48 and 53 percent, and plasticity indices of 25 and 41 percent.

Swell/consolidation testing (ASTM D4546) on the clay and sand samples taken at a depth of 9 feet exhibited swell of 0.1 percent upon wetting and an applied pressure of 500 psf, and swell of

0.3 percent at an applied pressure of 1,000 psf. These samples classified as CH and SC

(USCS) and as A-7-6 (36) and A-7-6 (8) (AASHTO).

3.3.4 Weathered Limestone

One weathered limestone sample taken at a depth of 14 feet was subjected to swell/consolidation testing (ASTM D4546) and exhibited swell of 1.1 percent upon wetting and an applied pressure of 1,000 psf.

3.4 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings during this investigation. We do not anticipate groundwater to be encountered during the foundation excavation. Variations in groundwater conditions may occur seasonally. The magnitude of the variation will be largely dependent upon the amount of spring snowmelt, duration and intensity of precipitation, landscape irrigation practices, site grading changes, and the surface and subsurface drainage characteristics of the surrounding area. Perched water tables may be present, but were not encountered in these borings.

4. FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based on geotechnical conditions encountered in the borings. We considered multiple foundation options, however, due to extreme live loading conditions, a deep foundation alternative is provided. Shallow foundations on engineered fill may be feasible, but they provide less uplift resistance and may not be suitable in this case. Both options are presented below for your consideration.

Design and construction details for the foundation options are given below for these options based on Allowable Stress Design (ASD) criteria.

4.1 Shallow Foundations

4.1.1 Shallow Foundation on Minimum Three (3) Feet of Engineered Fill

Alternatively, a shallow foundation (spread footing) bearing on a section of engineered fill may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf).

Foundation movement of 1 inch or less is anticipated. For this option, we recommend that at least 3 feet of the native soil below footing grade be removed and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill, placed as described in Section 6, Subgrade Preparation. The design bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 or as allowed by local code when considering total loads that include wind or seismic conditions. Recommended minimum widths of column and wall footings are 24 inches and 18 inches, respectively.

4.1.2 Additional Shallow Foundation Recommendations

If a shallow foundation is the chosen alternative, the exterior footings should be placed a minimum of 4.5 feet below finished grade for frost protection. Interior footings should bear a minimum of 12 inches below finished grade. Finished grade is the lowest adjacent grade for perimeter footings and floor level for interior footings.

Footings should be proportioned to reduce differential foundation movement. Proportioning on the basis of equal total movement is recommended; however, proportioning to relative constant dead load pressure will also reduce differential movement between adjacent footings. Total movement is estimated to be on the order of 1 inch or less. Differential movement should be on the order of ½ to ¾ of the estimated total movement. Additional foundation movements could occur if water from any source infiltrates the foundation soils; therefore, proper drainage should be provided in the final design and during construction. Footings and foundations should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement.

Areas of loose soils may be encountered at foundation bearing depth. When such conditions exist beneath planned footing areas, the subgrade soils should be compacted prior to placement of the foundation system. If unsuitable materials or construction debris are encountered in the footing excavations, they should be removed and replaced with engineered fill, placed and properly compacted.

Foundation excavations and placement of engineered fill should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. If the soil conditions encountered differ from those presented in this report, Yeh should be notified and recommendations herein may be revised.

4.2 Deep Foundations

4.2.1 Drilled Shafts

Drilled shafts offer an increased load carrying capability by transferring loads to the underlying bedrock due to the large end bearing capacity. The shafts can be designed for side and tip resistance in the bedrock and are capable of resisting lateral loads. These recommendations are based on end bearing alone due to the presence of bedrock being reasonably close to the ground surface and the contribution of side resistance is low relative to the end bearing value.

Preliminary estimates of allowable drilled shaft capacity are 30 ksf of tip resistance (end bearing) socketed into bedrock at least 2 shaft diameters. A shaft diameter of 1.5 feet was used for estimation of drilled shaft capacity, which would be approximately 53 kips for one drilled shaft. Foundation movement of ½ inch or less is anticipated for a drilled shaft foundation options. If drilled shafts are the chosen alternative, then the contractor should mobilize drilling equipment of sufficient size to drill the bottom portion of the shaft into bedrock material.

Additionally, disposal of the cuttings and drilling fluid will need to be planned for ahead of time.

Additional recommendations can be provided if a drilled shaft option is desired.

4.2.2 Micropiles

Micropiles extending into the bedrock can be used to support the foundation loads from the proposed structure. Micropile construction uses smaller equipment than that required for driven piles or drilled shafts and will be less disruptive to nearby facilities. The bedrock will provide resistance for micropiles based on the estimated grout-to-bedrock bond stress. Tip resistance is usually neglected in micropile design. Disadvantages of micropiles include a lack of lateral load capacity, and multiple, closely spaced piles are sometimes required to support the vertical foundation loads. Drilling conditions for micropile installation will be similar to those for drilled shafts. Full-depth temporary casing may be required to maintain open holes until reinforcing and grout are in place. Permanent steel casing may be required to increase structural resistance due to the potential for buckling in soft and loose soils above the bearing zone. A preliminary estimate of capacity of a single 7.5-inch diameter micropile that penetrates at least 5 feet into the bedrock is 107 kips. Foundation movement of ½ inch or less is anticipated for micropile foundation options.

• The parameters listed below in Table 2 may be used for lateral loading analysis of deep foundations using the LPILE program.

• The upper 3 feet of pile or shaft penetration should be neglected for lateral load resistance calculation.

Table 2 - LPILE Parameters

Soil Type.

LPILE Soil Criteria

Effective Unit Weight Density (pcf)

Friction Angle (deg.)

Cohesion (psf) p-y Modulus k- pci

Strain (Soil) e50

Strain (Rock) krm

Gravelly Clay

Stiff Clay w/o Free Water

111 26 1000 1000 0.005 -

Clay Stiff Clay w/o Free Water

97 - 3000 1000 0.005

Bedrock Weak Rock 130 - - - - 0.0005

4.3 Exterior Slabs

Some of the on-site soils, whether in-place or used in fills, may have susceptibility to frost heave. Covering of the native soils and/or introduction of moisture from irrigation or concentrated precipitation may increase the moisture content of the soils and result in frost heave. Therefore, movement may occur in exterior concrete slabs, which can result in off-sets, tilting and cracking. The movement and cracking may affect the appearance and performance of the slabs and can affect slab compliance with ADA requirements. There are several mitigation measures to improve slab appearance and performance; however, these options are not solely related to the geotechnical aspects, so input from the design team is suggested. In areas where movement is to be mitigated we believe these options can be considered for best performance.

1. The upper 12 inches of the native sandy clay subgrade soils and/or topsoil could be removed and replaced with imported granular non-plastic fill with less than 20 percent fines by weight.

2. At entrances to the building, the exterior slab may be structurally tied to the building foundation. This detail would reduce offsets between the exterior slab and the building interior; however, the movement may be translated to other portions of the exterior slab. The structural engineer should also include uplift loads from the exterior slab in designing the foundation.

3. Moisture is one of the key elements; therefore, elimination of irrigation around the exterior slabs, directing roof discharges away from these slabs and preventing snow accumulation adjacent to the slabs can reduce the potential for movement.

Additionally slopes should be graded to slope away from the building for a minimum of 10 feet.

4. Use of plants that do not require irrigation and will help absorb the moisture beneath the exterior slab without creating large root masses, which could cause slab movement, may also reduce potential movement.

4.4 Floor Slab Design and Construction

The floor slab should be supported on a 12-inch layer of imported structural fill, as described below. Some differential movement of a slab-on-grade floor system is possible should the subgrade soils become elevated in moisture content. To reduce potential slab movements, the subgrade soils and imported fill should be prepared as outlined in Section 5.1 of this report.

For structural design of concrete slabs-on-grade, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pci may be used for floors supported on 12 inches of non-expansive, imported fill meeting the specifications of Section 5.1.

Additional floor slab design and construction recommendations are as follows:

1. Positive separations and/or isolation joints should be provided between slabs and all foundations, columns or utility lines to allow independent movement.

2. Control joints should be provided in slabs to control the location and extent of cracking.

3. Interior trench backfill placed beneath slabs should be properly placed and compacted.

4. In areas subjected to normal loading, a minimum 4-inch layer of sand, clean graded gravel or aggregate base course should be placed beneath interior slabs. For heavy loading, reevaluation of slab and/or base course thickness may be required.

5. If moisture-sensitive floor coverings are used on interior slabs, consideration should be given to the use of barriers to minimize potential vapor rise through the slab.

6. Floor slabs should not be constructed on frozen subgrade.

7. Other design and construction considerations, as outlined in Section 302.1 R of the "ACI Design Manual", are recommended.

5. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE

The on-site clayey topsoil is not recommended for backfill against the foundation walls and other retaining structures. Cohesionless soils, such as an imported granular fill, or the on-site clay and gravel with less than 20 percent fines may be used for backfilling foundations and retaining structures. Lateral earth pressures can be calculated using the equivalent fluid pressures below for cohesionless soils or clayey gravel above any free water surface. The values below assume no surcharge load or inclined backfill at the top of the wall.

Recommended equivalent fluid pressures for laterally restrained foundation elements are:

• At Rest:

Cohesionless soils or low plasticity on-site clay and gravel backfill ................. 60 pcf

Where the design includes unrestrained elements, the following equivalent fluid pressures are recommended:

• Active:

Cohesionless soils or low plasticity on-site clay and gravel backfill ................. 45 pcf

Coefficient of base friction ................................................................................................ 0.25

For restrained or unrestrained foundation elements:

• Passive:

Cohesionless soils or low plasticity on-site clay and gravel backfill ............... 336 pcf

1 0

The lateral earth pressures herein do not include a factor of safety and are not applicable for submerged soils/hydrostatic loading. Additional recommendations may be necessary if submerged conditions are to be included in the design.

Compaction of each lift of fill adjacent to walls should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight compactors. Over compaction may cause excessive lateral earth pressures, which could result in wall movement.

A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe and test structural material used for construction.

6. SITE GRADING CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the preliminary plans provided at the time of this report, it is likely that cuts up to 5 feet below existing grade, especially on the west side of the site, and fills up to 5 feet, especially on the east side of the site, should be anticipated to achieve foundation grades. Earth retention may be required for construction of below-grade areas. Based on our investigation, excavations for the proposed construction would likely encounter variable amounts of silt, clay, sand, and gravel. We believe the excavations can be accomplished using conventional, heavy-duty excavation equipment. If encountered, large boulders or bedrock may require larger equipment for removal.

We recommend topsoil, vegetation and organic materials be removed from the site or used to revegetate landscaped areas after completion of grading operations. All exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions, which could prevent uniform compaction.

Engineered fill should have no more than 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. On-site material may not be suitable for engineered fill below structures.

All exposed areas which will receive fill, once properly cleared, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted.

Fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches loose measurement, using equipment and procedures that will produce a uniform fill with the recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift. Recommended compaction criteria for engineered fill is 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM

1 1

D698, at a moisture content within 2 percent of optimum for granular soils and 0 to 2 percent above optimum for low plasticity clay soils. Placement and compaction of structural fill should be observed and tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer.

Surface water should be directed away from the crest of slopes. The slopes should be protected from erosion by re-vegetation or other means.

6.1 Excavation and Trench Construction

Excavations into the on-site soils will encounter a variety of conditions. All excavations must comply with the applicable local, State, and Federal safety regulations, and particularly with the excavation standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Construction site safety, including excavation safety, is the sole responsibility of the Contractor as part of its overall responsibility for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations.

Please note that an OSHA-qualified “competent person” must make the actual determination of soil type and allowable sloping in the field.

7. SURFACE DRAINAGE

Surface drainage is crucial to the performance of foundations and flatwork. We recommend the ground surface surrounding the building be sloped to drain away from the structure. We recommend a slope of at least 6 inches in the first 10 feet for landscape areas and a minimum slope of 0.5 percent for paved areas. Backfill around foundations should be moisture conditioned and compacted at 95 percent maximum density of standard Proctor value and at +/-

2 percent optimum moisture content. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge beyond the backfill area. We recommend irrigated landscaping be a minimum of 5 feet away from building walls and foundations.

8. CONCRETE AND CORROSIVITY

The concentrations of water-soluble sulfate measured in the laboratory on three samples taken at a depths of 2 feet, 4 feet and 9 feet were less than 0.001 percent. These concentrations of water-soluble sulfate represent a negligible/low (Class 0 exposure) degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to this material. The degree of attack is based on a range of 0.00 to less than

0.10 percent as presented in the American Concrete Institute Guide to Durable Concrete. Due to the negligible/low degree indicated by the test results, no special requirements for concrete

1 2 are necessary for Class 0 exposure. Structural fill and aggregate base course are assumed to have Class 0 exposure or no effect on concrete.

The pH, electrical resistivity and water-soluble chloride were also determined for the two samples taken at depths of 4 feet and 9 feet. Test results on these samples measured pH values of 8.3 and 8.6. The resistivity measurements for these samples were 2616 and 3509 ohm-centimeters, and water-soluble chloride concentrations were 0.0005 and 0.0007 percent. A qualified corrosion engineer should review this data to determine the appropriate level of corrosion protection.

9. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Based upon the nature of the subsurface materials, a Site Class D, should be used for the design of the risk category II structure for the proposed project (ASCE 7-16, site coordinates:

37.612461° N, -112.837174° W). The project site is located in a seismic area with a mapped maximum short period (Ss) and 1-second period (S1) ground motion of 0.665 g and 0.212 g, respectively. The site coefficient Fa for the same period is 1.268.

10. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Improvements have been proposed to the Cedar Breaks National Monument Visitor Center paved path in conjunction with the proposed new visitor center building. This path generally accommodates pedestrians, but on occasion, vehicles may need use the path for access. The design specifications below account for this occasional vehicle use.

10.1 Traffic Loading

Twenty-year, 18-kip design Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) were estimated based on

CFLHD guidelines for low volume pavements and when no traffic volumes are available, the pavement design should use the minimum loading of 50,000 ESALs. Table 3 shows the ESALs used for design of the paved path. ESALs were based on an estimated use of two (2) vehicles per day on the paved path during summer months.