6-4-DA26023-24204520 Geotechnical Report.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

DWR – Proposed Loa Fish Hatchery Programming

January 17, 2024

January 17, 2024

Jon Vance

State of Utah DFCM

4110 State Office Building

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

Subject: Geotechnical Investigation

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) – Loa Fish Hatchery Programming Loa, Utah

Mr. Vance, Enclosed herein is the report for a geotechnical investigation for the above referenced project. This report presents the results of the geotechnical subsurface exploration, engineering analysis, and recommendations for design and construction of the proposed Loa Fish Hatchery Improvements Project in Loa, Utah.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services to you for this project. Should you have any questions about the report, or if we may be of further service in any way, please let us know.

Sincerely, SUNRISE ENGINEERING, INC.

Prepared by:

1/17/2024

Dao Yang, P.E.

Project Engineer/Hydrogeologist

Reviewed by:

Derek Anderson, P.E.

Environmental Division Manager

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ii

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

UDWR – PROPOSED LOA FISH HATCHERY PROGRAMMING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVES

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3 SITE INVESTIGATION

3.1 GENERAL GEOLOGY

3.2 TEST PIT EXCAVATION AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

3.3.1 Active Fault and Surface Fault Rupture

3.3.2 Landslide/Rock Fall

3.3.3 Floodplain

3.3.4 Avalanche Path

3.5.5 Liquefaction

4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 SITE PREPARATION

4.2 EXCAVATION AND SITE GRADING

4.3 FILL MATERIAL

4.4 PERMANENT SLOPES

4.5 FOUNDATIONS

4.5.1 Footings

4.5.1.1 Buildings

4.5.1.2 Raceways

4.5.2 Design Criteria

4.5.3 Settlement

4.5.4 Slabs on Grade

4.5.5 Lateral Pressure

4.5.6 Lateral Resistance

4.5.7 Drainage

4.5.8 Soil Corrosivity

4.5.9 Pavement

4.6 SEISMIC LATERAL EARTH FORCE

4.6.1 Site Class

4.6.2 Seismic Lateral Earth Force

4.6.3 Other Seismic Parameter Values

5 LIMITATIONS

6 REFERENCES

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Project Location Map

Figure 2 Site Map

Figure 3 Geologic Map

Figure 4 Quaternary Fault Map

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Geotechnical Laboratory Results

Appendix B Floodplain Information

Appendix C Chemical Laboratory Results

Appendix D Well Logs

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Sunrise Engineering, Inc. (Sunrise) has completed a geotechnical investigation for a proposed fish hatchery improvements project in Loa, Utah. The proposed project site covers portions of Sections 24 and 25, Township 27 South, Range 2 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian (SLBM), as shown in Figure 1. This report presents a summary of the geotechnical investigation.

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of the geotechnical investigation were to:

• Evaluate subsurface soil/rock and groundwater conditions within the project area, and

• Provide appropriate foundation and earthwork recommendations at the project site.

1.2 Scope of Work

The following tasks have been completed:

• Collect and review available geologic and soil data within the project area

• Excavate seven test pits (TP-1 through T-7) at various locations on-site

• Analyze collected geotechnical data

• Provide recommendations for design and construction of the proposed structure

2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The purpose of the project is to upgrade the existing old hatchery for fish enhancement. The proposed project components, as depicted in Figure 2, include the following:

• Demolition of existing old buildings and dilapidated raceways

• Installation of a new spring collection system to improve the existing spring water collection system

• Construction of new raceways in two areas: a 124-foot by 86-foot area and a 500-foot by 146-foot area

• Construction of a shop/office building, two replacement houses, one feed building, a new disinfection station, a degasser, and a wastewater treatment facility

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2

3 SITE INVESTIGATION

3.1 General Geology

The project site is located in Dry Valley. According to Biek and others (2015), the project site is underlain by the Quaternary modern stream alluvium (Qal1) (Holocene) and young and middle fan alluvium, undivided, (Qafy) (Holocene to upper Pleistocene), as shown in Figure 3. The modern stream alluvium consists of sorted sand, silt, clay, and pebble to boulder gravel deposited in active, main-stem stream channels and floodplains of creeks; locally includes minor stream-terrace alluvium as much as 10 feet above current stream levels; typically incised into older alluvial and fan deposits; and is probably less than 20 feet thick. The young and middle fan alluvium formation consists of poorly to moderately sorted, non-stratified, boulder- to clay-size sediment containing subangular to subrounded clasts deposited at the mouths of streams and washes; forms both active depositional surfaces and low-level inactive surfaces incised by small streams that are undivided; deposited primarily as debris flows and debris floods, and has a thickness of a few tens of feet.

Figure 3 also indicates that Dry Valley is a graben formed by two buried normal faults. The site is located at the edge of the valley, and one of the buried faults runs beneath the site. The Brian Spring may be associated with the fault.

3.2 Test Pit Excavation and Subsurface Conditions

Fieldwork was conducted on May 23, 2019, seven test pits were excavated using a track hoe provided and operated by Jackson Excavation. Test Pit locations are shown in Figure 2. Table 1 summarizes the soil and groundwater conditions at the test pit locations.

Table 1. Soil and Groundwater Conditions at Test Pit Locations

Test

Pit # Description

Total

Depth Groundwater

0-4': fi l l material consisting of gravel with sand and fines; 4-8':

cemented gravel, cobbles and boulders; and refusal occurred at 8'.

8' 2'

2 0-2': topsoil; 2-6': silty sand (SM); 6-7': clay; and 7-15': silty. 15' No groundwater

0-5': gravelly fi l l; 5-10': clay (CL); and 10-13': silt (ML). Spring water encountered at 10' and artesian flow after test pit was backfil led.

13' 10'

4 0-2': topsoil; 2-15': sandy silt (SM). 15' No groundwater

5 0-2': topsoil; 2-6': silt (ML); 6-10': clay (CL); and 10-15': sandy silt (SM). 15' 10'

0-1': topsoil; 1-5': sandy silt (SM); 5-9': clay (CL) with LL=38, PL=15 and

PI=17; and 9-15': silt (ML).

15' No groundwater

7 0-2': topsoil; 2-3': sandy silt (SM); 3-7': clay (CL); and 7-16': silt (ML). 16' No groundwater

Selected soil samples were delivered to a geotechnical laboratory for analyses of gradation and Atterberg limits. Only one of the samples is plastic (TP-6@7’) with a plasticity index of 17. All the other samples are non-plastic. The geotechnical laboratory report is provided in Appendix A.

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 3

3.3 Geologic Hazards

3.3.1 Active Fault and Surface Fault Rupture

An active fault is a fault displaying evidence of greater than four inches of displacement along one or more of its traces during Holocene time (about 10,000 years ago to present).

The buried fault that runs beneath the site is not an active fault. According to the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) (2019), there are no active faults within a 5-mile radius of the project site, as shown in Figure 4.

Therefore, a fault study is not required.

3.3.2 Landslide/Rock Fall

Landslide or landslip is a geological phenomenon which includes a wide range of ground movement such as rock falls, deep failure of slopes, and shallow debris flows which can occur in offshore, coastal and onshore environments. Although the action of gravity is the primary driving force for a landslide to occur, there are other contributing factors affecting the original slope stability. Typically, pre-conditional factors build up specific sub-surface conditions that make the area/slope prone to failure, whereas the actual landslide often requires a trigger before being released.

According to Giroud and Shaw (2007), the project area has a very low susceptibility potential for landslides.

Based on the topographic information in Figure 1, the site is very flat; however, the land to the west has a topographic slope of approximately 26%. The relatively steep slope is well vegetated, and no loose rock was observed during the fieldwork conducted on May 23, 2019. Therefore, rock fall hazard is not of concern at the project site.

3.3.3 Floodplain

A floodplain is flat or nearly flat land adjacent to a stream or river that experiences occasional or periodic flooding. It includes the floodway, which consists of the stream channel and adjacent areas that carry flood flows, and the flood fringe, which are areas covered by the flood that do not experience a strong current. A 100-year flood is calculated to be the level of flood water expected to be equaled or exceeded every 100 years on average. The 100-year flood is more accurately referred to as the 1% flood, since it is a flood that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any single year. Based on the expected flood water level, a predicted area of inundation can be mapped.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website was searched for Flood Insurance Rate

Maps (FIRMs) covering the project area. The project site is not mapped (FEMA, 2019). According to Six

County Association of Governments (2009), the project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard zone

(Appendix B).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_(geology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Crustal_Displacement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_geological_phenomena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slope_stability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_%28geography%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_%28fluid%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4

3.3.4 Avalanche Path

An avalanche is a rapid flow of snow down a slope, from either natural triggers or human activity.

Typically occurring in mountainous terrain, an avalanche can mix air and water with the descending snow. Powerful avalanches have the capability to entrain ice, rocks, trees, and other material on the slope. Avalanches are primarily composed of flowing snow, and are distinct from mudslides, rock slides, and serac collapses on an icefall. In mountainous terrain, avalanches are among the most serious objective hazards to life and property, with their destructive capability resulting from their potential to carry an enormous mass of snow rapidly over large distances.

According to the Utah Avalanche Center (2019), no avalanche has been recorded since 1910 in the Loa area. Therefore, the site is not within an avalanche path.

3.5.5 Liquefaction

Liquefaction is a process by which soils below the water table temporarily lose strength and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. The types of soils most susceptible are clay-free deposits of sand and silts, and occasionally gravel. When seismic waves, primarily shear waves, pass through saturated granular layers, they distort the granular structure and cause loosely packed groups of particles to collapse. These collapses increase the pore-water pressure between the soil grains if drainage cannot occur. If the pore-water pressure rises to a level approaching the weight of the overlying soil, the effective stresses between soil grains drops to zero and the granular layer temporarily behaves as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. The liquefaction potential of a soil depends primarily on the looseness of the soil, the amount of cementing or clay between particles, and the amount of drainage restriction.

Since the subsurface soils are generally fine-grained material (mostly silt and clay), the liquefaction potential at the site may be low should a strong earthquake occur.

4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Site Preparation

Topsoil, manmade fills (where encountered) and soils loosened by construction activities should be removed from the building pad, pavement areas, and concrete flatwork areas prior to foundation excavation and placement of site grading fills. Following stripping, the subgrade should be proof-rolled to a firm, non-yielding condition or 90% of maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). Soft areas detected during the proof-rolling operation should be removed and replaced with structural fill. If the soft soil extends more than 1.5 feet deep, stabilization may be required. The use of stabilization should be approved by the geotechnical engineer and would likely consist of over-excavating the area by at least

1.5 feet, placing a geofabric (such as Mirafi 600X)) or a geogrid (such as Tensar BX-1100) at the bottom of the excavation over which a stabilizing fill consisting of angular coarse gravel with cobbles is placed up to the design subgrade. Vegetation and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudflow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landslide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serac http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icefall

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 5

The stripped soils will be unsuitable as structural fill but may be stockpiled for later use in landscaped areas.

4.2 Excavation and Site Grading

Earthwork will be required to level the construction site. Shallow temporary construction excavations not exceeding 4 feet in depth may be constructed with near-vertical side slopes. Temporary cut slopes may be constructed at side slopes of 1.5:1.0 (horizontal: vertical). It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide safe working conditions in connection with below grade excavations.

4.3 Fill Material

All fill material should be inorganic soils free of vegetation and debris. Fill material should meet the requirements based on the intended use, as summarized in Table 2. Compaction requirements are provided in Table 3.

Table 2. Fill Material Requirements

Size Percent finer by weight

Structural Fill

Under foundations, concrete slabs or other structural areas

4 inch

No. 4 sieve

No. 200 sieve

35-65

15-35

Liquid limit 20 max

Plasticity Index 6 max

Site Grading Fill

Fill in non-structural areas and below pavements

4 inch

No. 200 sieve

<50

Liquid limit 40 max

Plasticity Index 10 max

Pipe Zone Backfill Within utility pipe zone

3/4 inch

3/8 inch

No. 4 sieve

No. 16 sieve

No. 200 sieve

78-92

55-67

28-38

7-11

Non-plastic

Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill above pipe zone

6 inch

No. 200 sieve

<50

Liquid limit 30 max

Plasticity Index 6 max

Aggregate Base

Course

Access Road and Parking

Area

2 inch

1½ inch

3/4 inch

3/8 inch

No. 4 sieve

No. 40 sieve

No. 200 sieve

85-100

70-85

55-75

40-65

15-30

4-10

Non-plastic

Requirements

Gradation Fill Type Application

Plasticity

Pea gravel or other similar non-cementitious, poorly-graded materials should not be used as fill or backfill without prior approval from the geotechnical engineer.

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 6

Table 3. Compaction Requirements

Item Description

Fill Lift Thickness 8 inches or less in loose thickness

Compaction • 95% of the material’s maximum dry density (MDD) per ASTM D1557 below footings, floor slabs and road areas as well as areas with 5 feet or more fill.

• 90% of material’s MDD per ASTM D1557 in other areas of fill and backfill.

Moisture Content • near optimum water content (within ±2% of optimum at the time of placement and compaction).

Fill should be tested frequently for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified compaction is achieved. This may require adjustment of the moisture content.

4.4 Permanent Slopes

All final cut and fill slopes, if any, shall be graded to at least 2.0:1.0 (horizontal: vertical) or retained.

4.5 Foundations

4.5.1 Footings

4.5.1.1 Buildings

Based on the onsite soil conditions, it is recommended that buildings be constructed on spread footings.

Footings should not be installed on loose or disturbed soils, undocumented fill, topsoil, construction debris, frozen soil, or within ponded water. If unsuitable soils are encountered, they should be over-excavated and replaced with structural fill. Structural fill placed below footings should extend laterally beyond the edges of the foundation. Structural fill, with a minimum thickness of 1-foot, should be placed beneath the footing. The minimum over-excavation and backfill procedure is shown in the following diagram:

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 7

OVEREXCAVATION / BACKFILL

If the exposed soils on which the footings are to be founded become loose or disturbed, they should be re-compacted before concrete is placed.

4.5.1.2 Raceways

Based on the onsite soil conditions, it is recommended that raceways be constructed on a mat footing foundation. Footings should not be installed on loose or disturbed soil, undocumented fill, topsoil, construction debris, frozen soil, or within ponded water. If unsuitable soils are encountered, they should be over-excavated and replaced with structural fill. Structural fill placed below footings should extend laterally beyond the edges of the foundation a distance of 1.5 feet and then 1 foot for every foot of depth below the foundation (see the following diagram).

If the exposed soils on which the footings are to be founded become loose or disturbed, they should be re-compacted before concrete is placed.

4.5.2 Design Criteria

Based on the available data and in compliance with applicable building codes, the recommended design parameters for footings are summarized in Table 4.

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 8

Table 4. Design Criteria

Bearing Capacity

Spread/Mat Foundation 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf)

Isolated Column 1,000 psf

Increase above value for short, transient loads 30%

Density of Structural Fill 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf)

Modulus for Structural Fill 150 psi/in

Subgrade Soil Density 100 pcf

Subgrade Modulus 50 psi/in

4.5.3 Settlement

Structures at the site should be designed for a settlement of 1 inch and a differential settlement of ½ inch.

4.5.4 Slabs on Grade

The design requirements for slabs on grade are provided in Table 5.

Table 5. Design Recommendations for Slabs on Grade

Item Description

Support for slabs on grade

A minimum of 4 inches of crushed gravel underlain by a minimum of 12 inches of reworked native soil or structural fill that is properly placed and compacted.

Modulus of subgrade reaction 100 psi/in (silty sand and gravel)

4.5.5 Lateral Pressure

Excavation walls and retaining walls will be subjected to horizontal loads from the lateral earth pressure of backfill. When the granular fill is lightly compacted, drained, and the surface of the soil slope behind the wall is horizontal, the backfill may be considered equivalent to a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for active pressure and 55 pcf for static pressure.

4.5.6 Lateral Resistance

Resistance to lateral loads at the bottom of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.3. Passive resistance provided by properly placed and compacted granular structural fill above the water table may be considered equivalent to a fluid with a density of 250 pcf. These are ultimate frictional and passive pressure values and should be used with appropriate safety factors in design. Note that fill against the sides of footings should be placed and compacted to at least 90% of maximum dry density as indicated in Section 4.3 (Structural Fill).

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 9

4.5.7 Drainage

Drainage design should provide for rapid removal of water from foundation soils and pavement materials, both during and after construction. Drainage design should provide for intercepting water and directing it away from cut and fill slopes.

4.5.8 Soil Corrosivity

Two soil samples were collected from Test Pits TP-2 and TP-7. The samples were delivered under proper chain-of-custody protocols to a chemical laboratory for analysis of sulfate, pH and resistivity. The laboratory results for the samples are summarized in Table 6 and provided in Appendix C.

Table 6. Chemical Laboratory Results

Test Pit Depth (ft) Sulfate (mg/kg) Resistivity (ohm-cm) pH

TP-2 3 51 154,000 8.2

TP-7 4 21 343,000 8.4

Based on the laboratory results presented in Table 4, the sulfate concentration is considered negligible.

Therefore, Type I or II Portland Cement is recommended for the proposed project.

Based on the laboratory results presented in Table 4, the resistivity results range from 154,000 to

343,000 ohm-cm and the pH values are between 8.2 and 8.4, indicating an unlikely corrosion potential

(Hubbell, Inc., 2003).

4.5.9 Pavement

The pavement recommendations in this section are based on light trucks as the traffic load. Under the assumption that the CBR value is 5 for the onsite native subgrade and 78 for road base, and EAL = 5,000 for light trucks, the following pavement recommendations are given: a 3-inch-thick asphalt concrete surface over an 8-inch-thick aggregate base course underlain by 12-inches of reworked subgrade or structural fill in fill areas.

4.6 Seismic Lateral Earth Force

4.6.1 Site Class

Based on the data collected from the test pits, well logs (Appendix E), and geologic information at the site, the project site may be classified as Site Class E (soft soil) according to International Code Council, Inc. (2021).

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 10

4.6.2 Seismic Lateral Earth Force

Seismic activity can generate increased lateral earth pressures acting on the foundation walls of structures. The increase is influenced by horizontal ground acceleration. Based on the simplified

Mononobe-Okabe procedure with the yielding walls approach for a vertical wall with horizontal backfill, the additional lateral pressures due to earthquake motions at the site may be estimated as follows:

ΔPae = 9.95H2 for the walls

Where ΔPae = seismic lateral pressures in pounds per linear foot (plf) acting at a distance of 0.6*H from the base of the wall, where H is the height of retained soil in feet.

4.6.3 Other Seismic Parameter Values

Based on ASCE/SEI 7-22, other seismic parameter values that may be useful for structural design at the project site are provided as follows:

Parameter Value (g)

Ss 0.51

S1 0.13

SMS 0.77

SDS 0.51

SD1 0.36

SM1 0.53

PGAM 0.29

5 LIMITATIONS

The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on the data obtained from the test pits at the indicated locations (Figure 2). This report does not reflect variations which may occur at other areas or across the project site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use and specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with currently accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are provided. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the recommendations contained in this report shall be considered invalid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer.

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 11

6 REFERENCES

Biek, R.F., J.G. Eaton, P.D. Rowley and S.R. Mattox. 2015. Interim Geologic Map of the Western Loa 30’ X

60’ Quadrangle, Garfield, Piute and Wayne Counties, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report

648.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address.

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=loa%2C%20utah#searchresultsanchor.

Accessed on June 7, 2019.

Giroud, R.E. and L.M. Shaw. 2007. Landslide Susceptibility Map of Utah.

Hubbell, Inc. 2003. Helical Screw Foundation System Design Manual for New Construction.

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

Six County Association of Governments. 2019. Wayne County Natural Hazard Assessment for Pre-

Disaster Mitigation. Available at http://sixcounty.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Section-7-

Wayne-County.pdf. Accessed on June 12, 2019.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2019. Quaternary Fault Database. Available at https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf884

12fcf. Accessed June 12, 2019.

Utah Avalanche Center. Avalanche Map. Available at https://utahavalanchecenter.org/avalanches/map?fodv%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=10%2F01%2F

1910&fodv%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=06%2F11%2F2019. Accessed on June 12, 2019.

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=loa%2C%20utah#searchresultsanchor http://sixcounty.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Section-7-Wayne-County.pdf http://sixcounty.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Section-7-Wayne-County.pdf https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf https://utahavalanchecenter.org/avalanches/map?fodv%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=10%2F01%2F1910&fodv%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=06%2F11%2F2019 https://utahavalanchecenter.org/avalanches/map?fodv%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=10%2F01%2F1910&fodv%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=06%2F11%2F2019

Figures

FIG. 1

ENGINEERING

6875 SOUTH 900 EAST

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84047

TEL 801.523.0100 FAX 801.523.0990

www.sunrise-eng.com

ORTHN

AutoCAD SHX Text

UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES

AutoCAD SHX Text of

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

COMMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

SEI NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DESIGNED

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAWN

AutoCAD SHX Text

CHECKED

AutoCAD SHX Text

SHEET NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

FOR CONSTRUCTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

FOR REVIEW ONLY

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

SITE VICINITY MAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

DQY

AutoCAD SHX Text

DQY

AutoCAD SHX Text

DSA

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOA

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOA FISH HATCHERY PROGRAMMING

AutoCAD SHX Text S06837

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text 1000'

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text 1000'

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UAREA MAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT SITE

AutoCAD SHX Text

WELL W2

AutoCAD SHX Text

WELL W1

FIG. 2

6875 SOUTH 900 EAST

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84047

TEL 801.523.0100 FAX 801.523.0990

www.sunrise-eng.com

ORTHN

AutoCAD SHX Text

UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES

AutoCAD SHX Text of

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

COMMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

SEI NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DESIGNED

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAWN

AutoCAD SHX Text

CHECKED

AutoCAD SHX Text

SHEET NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

FOR CONSTRUCTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

FOR REVIEW ONLY

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

SITE MAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

DQY

AutoCAD SHX Text

DQY

AutoCAD SHX Text

DSA

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOA

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOA FISH HATCHERY PROGRAMMING

AutoCAD SHX Text S06837

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text 40'

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text 40'

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UAREA MAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROXIMATE PROJECT BOUNDARY

AutoCAD SHX Text

TP-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

TP-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

TP-3

AutoCAD SHX Text

TP-4

AutoCAD SHX Text

TP-5

AutoCAD SHX Text

TP-6

AutoCAD SHX Text

TP-7

APPROXIMATE PROJECT BOUNDARY

FIG. 3

6875 SOUTH 900 EAST

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84047

TEL 801.523.0100 FAX 801.523.0990

www.sunrise-eng.com

ORTHN

AutoCAD SHX Text

UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES

AutoCAD SHX Text of

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

COMMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

SEI NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DESIGNED

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAWN

AutoCAD SHX Text

CHECKED

AutoCAD SHX Text

SHEET NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

FOR CONSTRUCTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

FOR REVIEW ONLY

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

GEOLOGIC MAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

DQY

AutoCAD SHX Text

DQY

AutoCAD SHX Text

DSA

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOA

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOA FISH HATCHERY PROGRAMMING

AutoCAD SHX Text S06837

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text 400'

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text 400'

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UAREA MAP

PROJECT SITE

FIG. 4

6875 SOUTH 900 EAST

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84047

TEL 801.523.0100 FAX 801.523.0990

www.sunrise-eng.com

ORTHN

AutoCAD SHX Text

UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES

AutoCAD SHX Text of

AutoCAD SHX Text

REV NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

COMMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

SEI NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DESIGNED

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAWN

AutoCAD SHX Text

CHECKED

AutoCAD SHX Text

SHEET NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

FOR CONSTRUCTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

FOR REVIEW ONLY

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

QUATERNARY FAULT MAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

DQY

AutoCAD SHX Text

DQY

AutoCAD SHX Text

DSA

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOA

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOA FISH HATCHERY PROGRAMMING

AutoCAD SHX Text S06837

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text 3000'

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text 3000'

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UAREA MAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT SITE

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UQUATERNARY FAULT LEGEND

5-MILE RADIUS OF SITE

Appendix A

Geotechnical Laboratory Results

CLIENT: Sunrise Engineering PROJECT: Loa Fish Hatchery

Attn: Dao Yang

6875 South 900 East

Midvale, Utah 84047

000567-007

DATE: 882-1

SAMPLE SOURCE: Native

METHOD OF TEST: ASTM C136/ C117/ D4318

TP-2@4' TP-3@10' TP-4@8' TP-5@5' TP-6@7' TP-7@10'

SM ML SM ML CL ML

100 76

99 72

96 65

93 58

90 100 51 100 100 100

85 99 36 99 97 98

78 98 27 98 94 95

69.0 93.3 19.2 93..5 87.3 87.9

Respectfully submitted, Utah Testing and Engineering

Ryan Brown

REPORT OF SIEVE ANALYSIS AND ATTEBERG LIMITS

REPORT:

#200

#4

#8

LAB NUMBER:

RESULTS

Classification

Liquid Limit

ID

3/8"

Plastic Limit

U.S. Standard

Sieve Number

TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE SPECIFIC SAMPLES TESTED, REPORTS MAY NOT BE

REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION BY UTAH TESTING AND ENGINEERING.

1/2"

1"

#16

1 1/2"

June 7, 2019

#50

Plastic Index

3/4"

#100

Appendix B

Floodplain Information

Appendix C

Chemical Laboratory Results

The analyses presented on this report were performed in accordance with the

National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) unless noted in the comments, flags, or case narrative. If the report is to be used for regulatory compliance, it should be presented in its entirety, and not be altered.

Client Service Contact: 801.262.7299

Sunrise Engineering Inc.

Attn: Dao Yang

12227 S. Business Park Dr #220

Draper, UT 84020

Work Order: 19E1380

Project: DWR

6/6/2019

Approved By:

Mark Broadhead, Project Manager

9632 South 500 West Sandy, Utah 84070

Serving the Intermountain West since 1953

801.262.7299 Main 866.792.0093 Fax www.ChemtechFord.com

xx

Chemtech-Ford Laboratories Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953

Certificate of Analysis

9632 South 500 West

Sandy, UT 84070

O:(801) 262-7299 F: (866) 792-0093 www.ChemtechFord.com

Sunrise Engineering Inc.

Dao Yang

12227 S. Business Park Dr #220

Draper, UT 84020

PO#:

Receipt:

Date Reported:

Project Name:

5/23/19 16:20 @ 10.0 °C

6/6/2019

DWR

Sample ID: TP-2

Lab ID: 19E1380-01Matrix: Solid

Flag(s)Units

Analysis

Date/Time

Date Sampled: 5/23/19 10:15

Preparation

Date/Time

Sampled By: Dao Yang

Minimum

Reporting

Limit MethodResult

Inorganic pH Units 5/23/195/23/190.1 EPA 9045D8.2pH mg/kg dry 5/29/195/29/1911 EPA 300.051Sulfate, Soluble (IC)

% 5/31/195/30/190.1 SM 2540G91.4Total Solids ohm m 6/4/196/4/1910.0 EPA 120.1M1540Resistivity

Project Name: DWR CtF WO#: 19E1380 www.ChemtechFord.com Page 2 of 5Page 2 of 6

Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953

Certificate of Analysis

9632 South 500 West

Sandy, UT 84070

O:(801) 262-7299 F: (866) 792-0093 www.ChemtechFord.com

Sunrise Engineering Inc.

Dao Yang

12227 S. Business Park Dr #220

Draper, UT 84020

PO#:

Receipt:

Date Reported:

Project Name:

5/23/19 16:20 @ 10.0 °C

6/6/2019

DWR

Sample ID: TP-7

Lab ID: 19E1380-02Matrix: Solid

Flag(s)Units

Analysis

Date/Time

Date Sampled: 5/23/19 12:55

Preparation

Date/Time

Sampled By: Dao Yang

Minimum

Reporting

Limit MethodResult

Inorganic pH Units 5/23/195/23/190.1 EPA 9045D8.4pH mg/kg dry 5/29/195/29/1914 EPA 300.021Sulfate, Soluble (IC)

% 5/31/195/30/190.1 SM 2540G72.6Total Solids ohm m 6/4/196/4/1910.0 EPA 120.1M3430Resistivity

Project Name: DWR CtF WO#: 19E1380

Page 3 of 5Page 3 of 6

Serving the Intermountain West Since 1953

Certificate of Analysis

9632 South 500 West

Sandy, UT 84070

O:(801) 262-7299 F: (866) 792-0093 www.ChemtechFord.com

Sunrise Engineering Inc.

Dao Yang

12227 S. Business Park Dr #220

Draper, UT 84020

PO#:

Receipt:

Date Reported:

Project Name:

5/23/19 16:20 @ 10.0 °C

6/6/2019

DWR

Report Footnotes

Abbreviations

ND = Not detected at the corresponding Minimum Reporting Limit (MRL).

1 mg/L = one milligram per liter or 1 mg/kg = one milligram per kilogram = 1 part per million.

1 ug/L = one microgram per liter or 1 ug/kg = one microgram per kilogram = 1 part per billion.

1 ng/L = one nanogram per liter or 1 ng/kg = one nanogram per kilogram = 1 part per trillion.

Project Name: DWR CtF WO#: 19E1380

Page 4 of 5Page 4 of 6

Appendix D

Well Logs

W1 (1/2)

W1 (2/2)

W2

UDWR – Loa Fish Hatchery Programing

Additional Geotechnical Investigation

January 23, 2025

January 23, 2025

Jon Vance

State of Utah DFCM

4110 State Office Building

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

Subject: Additional Geotechnical Investigation

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) – Loa Fish Hatchery Programming

Loa, Utah

Mr. Vance, Enclosed herein is the report for a geotechnical investigation for the above referenced project. This report presents the results of the geotechnical subsurface exploration, engineering analysis, and recommendations for design and construction of the proposed Loa Fish Hatchery Improvements Project in Loa, Utah.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services to you for this project. Should you have any questions about the report, or if we may be of further service in any way, please let us know.

Sincerely, SUNRISE ENGINEERING, LLC

Prepared by:

1/23/2025

Dao Yang, P.E.

Project Engineer/Hydrogeologist

Reviewed by:

Derek Anderson, P.E.

Principal Engineer

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ii

ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

UDWR –LOA FISH HATCHERY PROGRAMMING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVES

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3 SITE INVESTIGATION

3.1 GENERAL GEOLOGY

3.2 TEST PIT EXCAVATION AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 SITE PREPARATION

4.2 EXCAVATION AND SITE GRADING

4.3 FILL MATERIAL

4.4 PERMANENT SLOPES

4.5 FOUNDATIONS

4.5.1 Footings

4.5.2 Design Criteria

4.5.3 Slabs on Grade

4.5.4 Lateral Pressure

4.5.5 Lateral Resistance

4.5.6 Drainage

4.5.7 Cement Type

4.6 PAVEMENT

4.6.1 Traffic

4.6.2 Subbase Preparation

4.6.3 Base Course

4.6.4 Flexible Pavement

4.6.5 Rigid Pavement

4.6.6 Drainage and Maintenance

4.6 SEISMIC LATERAL EARTH FORCE

4.6.1 Site Class

4.6.2 Seismic Lateral Earth Force

4.6.3 Other Seismic Parameter Values

5 LIMITATIONS

6 REFERENCES

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Project Location Map

Figure 2 Site Map

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Soil and Groundwater Conditions at Test Pit Locations

Table 2: Fill Material Requirements

Table 3: Compaction Requirements

Table 4: Design Criteria for Northern Area (TP-1 and TP-2)

Table 5: Design Criteria for Southern Area (TP-3 and TP-4)

Table 6: Design Recommendations for Slabs on Grade

Table 7: Traffic Data Analysis

Table 8: Base Course Material (UDOT)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Geotechnical Laboratory Report

Appendix B Chemical Laboratory Report

Appendix C Well Logs

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Sunrise Engineering, LLC (Sunrise) completed a geotechnical investigation for a fish hatchery improvements project in Loa, Utah in 2019. At that time, seven test pits (PTP-1 through PTP-7) were excavated. However, certain areas were not accessible due to the presence of aboveground structures and no test pits were excavated in those areas. Structures have since been removed from the inaccessible areas and design plans have been changed. As a result, an additional geotechnical investigation was required and completed. This additional geotechnical investigation was specifically performed for a proposed dewatering storage tank and dewatering building. There are two potential areas identified (northern and southern areas) for construction of the tank and building. The project site covers portions of Sections 24 and 25, Township 27 South, Range 2

East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian (SLBM), as shown in Figure 1. This report presents a summary of the additional geotechnical investigation.

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of the geotechnical investigation were to:

• Evaluate subsurface soil/rock and groundwater conditions within the project area, and

• Provide appropriate foundation and earthwork recommendations at the project site.

1.2 Scope of Work

The following tasks have been completed for this additional geotechnical investigation:

• Excavated additional four test pits (TP-1 through T-4) at two general areas (northern and southern).

• Analyzed collected geotechnical data.

• Provided recommendations for the design and construction of the dewatering storage tank and building.

2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

As stated above, the purpose of this additional geotechnical investigation is to investigate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the proposed dewatering tank and building locations. There are two potential sites for the tank and building. Test pits TP-1 and TP-2 were excavated at the northern site while test pits TP-

3 and TP-4 were excavated at the southern site. The test pit locations are shown in Figure 2.

3 SITE INVESTIGATION

3.1 General Geology

The geologic conditions have remained unchanged since the original geotechnical investigation was completed in 2019.

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2

3.2 Test Pit Excavation and Subsurface Conditions

Additional fieldwork was conducted on January 10, 2025, and four additional test pits (TP-1 through TP-4) were excavated using a Bobcat track hoe. Test Pit locations are shown in Figure 2. The seven test pits (PTP-1 through PTP-7) excavated in 2019 were also plotted in Figure 2. Table 1 summarizes the soil and groundwater conditions at the test pit locations.

Table 1: Soil and Groundwater Conditions at Test Pit Locations

Test

Pit # Description

Total

Depth Groundwater

TP-1

0-2': topsoil; 2-4': silty sand with gravel (SM); and 4-6': caliche-cemented silty sand (SM).

6' No groundwater

TP-2

0-2': topsoil; 2-4': clayey sand with gravel (SC) with LL=28 & PI=7; and

4-6': caliche-cemented silty sand (SM).

6' No groundwater

TP-3

0-2': topsoil; 2-3': clay; 3-5': clayey sand with gravel (SC) with LL=37 &

PI=14; and 5-7.5': volcanic-rock gravel with sand and fines (GM).

7.5' No groundwater

TP-4

0-2': fill consisting compacted gravelly material (GM); 2-4': clay; 4-6':

clayey sand with gravel (SC); and 6-8': blue sandy silt with gravel (ML).

8' 6'

PTP-1

0-4': fill material consisting of gravel with sand and fines; 4-8':

cemented gravel, cobbles and boulders; and refusal occurred at 8'.

8' 2'

PTP-2 0-2': topsoil; 2-6': silty sand (SM); 6-7': clay; and 7-15': silty. 15' No groundwater

PTP-3

0-5': gravelly fill; 5-10': clay (CL); and 10-13': silt (ML). Spring water encountered at 10' and artesian flow after test pit was backfilled.

13' 10'

PTP-4 0-2': topsoil; 2-15': sandy silt (SM). 15' No groundwater

PTP-5 0-2': topsoil; 2-6': silt (ML); 6-10': clay (CL); and 10-15': sandy silt (SM). 15' 10'

PTP-6

0-1': topsoil; 1-5': sandy silt (SM); 5-9': clay (CL) with LL=38 & PI=17;

and 9-15': silt (ML).

15' No groundwater

PTP-7 0-2': topsoil; 2-3': sandy silt (SM); 3-7': clay (CL); and 7-16': silt (ML). 16' No groundwater

Selected soil samples were delivered to a geotechnical laboratory for analyses of gradation, Atterberg limits and moisture content. The geotechnical laboratory report is provided in Appendix A.

3.3 Geologic Hazards

The geologic hazard conditions have remained unchanged at the site since the original geotechnical investigation was completed in 2019.

4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Site Preparation

Topsoil, manmade fills (where encountered) and soils loosened by construction activities should be removed from the building pad, pavement areas, and concrete flatwork areas prior to foundation excavation and placement of site grading fills. Following stripping, the subgrade should be proof-rolled to a firm, non-yielding condition or 90% of maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). Soft areas detected during the proof-

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 3 rolling operation should be removed and replaced with structural fill. If soft soils extend more than 1.5 feet deep, stabilization may be required. The use of stabilization should be approved by the geotechnical engineer and would likely consist of over-excavating the area by at least 1.5 feet, placing a geofabric (such as

Mirafi 600X)) or a geogrid (such as Tensar BX-1100) at the bottom of the excavation over which a stabilizing fill consisting of angular coarse gravel with cobbles is placed up to the design subgrade. Vegetation and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. The stripped soils will be unsuitable as structural fill but may be stockpiled for later use in landscaped areas.

4.2 Excavation and Site Grading

Earthwork will be required to level the construction site. Shallow temporary construction excavations not exceeding 4 feet in depth may be constructed with near-vertical side slopes. Temporary cut slopes may be constructed at side slopes of 1.5:1.0 (horizontal: vertical). It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide safe working conditions in connection with below grade excavations.

4.3 Fill Material

All fill material should be inorganic soils free of vegetation and debris. Fill material should meet the requirements based on the intended use, as summarized in Table 2. Compaction requirements are provided in Table 3.

Table 2: Fill Material Requirements

Size Percent finer by weight

Structural Fill

Under foundations, concrete slabs or other structural areas

4 inch

No. 4 sieve

No. 200 sieve

35-65

<20

Liquid limit 20 max

Plasticity Index 6 max

Site Grading Fill

Fill in non-structural areas and below pavements

4 inch

No. 200 sieve

<50

Liquid limit 40 max

Plasticity Index 10 max

Pipe Zone Backfill Within utility pipe zone

3/4 inch

3/8 inch

No. 4 sieve

No. 16 sieve

No. 200 sieve

78-92

55-67

28-38

7-11

Non-plastic

Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill above pipe zone

6 inch

No. 200 sieve

<50

Liquid limit 30 max

Plasticity Index 6 max

Aggregate Base

Course

Access Road and

Parking Area

2 inch

1½ inch

3/4 inch

3/8 inch

No. 4 sieve

No. 40 sieve

No. 200 sieve

85-100

70-85

55-75

40-65

15-30

4-10

Non-plastic

Requirements

Gradation Fill Type Application

Plasticity

Pea gravel or other similar non-cementitious, poorly-graded materials should not be used as fill or backfill without prior approval from the geotechnical engineer.

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4

Table 3: Compaction Requirements

Item Description

Fill Lift Thickness 8 inches or less in loose thickness

Compaction • 95% of the material’s maximum dry density (MDD) per ASTM D1557 below footings, floor slabs and road areas as well as areas with 5 feet or more fill.

• 90% of material’s MDD per ASTM D1557 in other areas of fill and backfill.

Moisture Content • near optimum water content (within ±2% of optimum at the time of placement and compaction).

Fill should be tested frequently for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified compaction is achieved. This may require adjustment of the moisture content.

4.4 Permanent Slopes

All final cut and fill slopes, if any, shall be graded to at least 2.0:1.0 (horizontal: vertical) or retained.

4.5 Foundations

4.5.1 Footings

4.5.1.1 Dewatering Building

Based on the onsite soil conditions, it is recommended that buildings be constructed on spread footings.

Footings should not be installed on loose or disturbed soils, undocumented fill, topsoil, construction debris, frozen soil, or within ponded water. If unsuitable soils are encountered, they should be over-excavated and replaced with structural fill. Structural fill placed below footings should extend laterally beyond the edges of the foundation. Structural fill, with a minimum thickness of 1-foot, should be placed beneath the footing. The minimum over-excavation and backfill procedure is shown in the following diagram:

OVEREXCAVATION / BACKFILL

If the exposed soils on which the footings are to be founded become loose or disturbed, they should be re-compacted before concrete is placed.

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 5

4.5.1.2 Dewatering Storage Tank

Based on the onsite soil conditions, it is recommended that the tank be constructed on a mat footing foundation. Footings should not be installed on loose or disturbed soil, undocumented fill, topsoil, construction debris, frozen soil, or within ponded water. If unsuitable soils are encountered, they should be over-excavated and replaced with structural fill. Structural fill, with a minimum thickness of 1-foot, should be placed beneath the footing. Structural fill placed below footings should extend laterally beyond the edges of the foundation a distance of 1.5 feet and then 1 foot for every foot of depth below the foundation (see the following diagram).

If the exposed soils on which the footings are to be founded become loose or disturbed, they should be re-compacted before concrete is placed.

4.5.2 Design Criteria

Based on the available data and in compliance with applicable building codes, the recommended design parameters for footings are summarized in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4: Design Criteria for Northern Area (TP-1 and TP-2)

Bearing Capacity (Net Allowable Bearing Pressure) For Dewatering Tank and Dewatering Building

Continuous (wall) footings/Mat Footing 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf)

Isolated columns 2,000 psf

Increase above value for short, transient loads by 30%

Exterior footing frost depth 30 inches

Total allowable settlement < 1 inch

Estimated differential settlement <½ inch

Coefficient of subgrade reaction, k1 1 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci)

Coefficient of structural fill reaction, k1 1 300 pounds per cubic inch (pci)

Density of subgrade 150 pcf

Density of structural fill 130 pcf

Note 1: This value is representative of a 1-foot by 1-foot footing and should be scaled appropriately for a larger foundation. The coefficient decreases as the width of the foundation increases. The following equations may be used to scale the coefficient of subgrade reaction:

𝑘 = 𝑘1

𝐵 for clayey subgrade 𝑘 = 𝑘1( 𝐵+1

2𝐵 )2 for structural fill

Where, k = scaled coefficient of subgrade reaction and B = foundation width.

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 6

Table 5: Design Criteria for Southern Area (TP-3 and TP-4)

Bearing Capacity (Net Allowable Bearing Pressure) For Dewatering Tank and Dewatering Building

Continuous (wall) footings/Mat Footing 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf)

Isolated columns 1,500 psf

Increase above value for short, transient loads by 30%

Exterior footing frost depth 30 inches

Total allowable settlement < 1 inch

Estimated differential settlement <½ inch

Coefficient of subgrade reaction, k1 1 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci)

Coefficient of structural fill reaction, k1 1 300 pounds per cubic inch (pci)

Density of subgrade 100 pcf

Density of structural fill 130 pcf

Note 2: This value is representative of a 1-foot by 1-foot footing and should be scaled appropriately for a larger foundation. The coefficient decreases as the width of the foundation increases. The following equations may be used to scale the coefficient of subgrade reaction:

𝑘 = 𝑘1

𝐵 for clayey subgrade 𝑘 = 𝑘1( 𝐵+1

2𝐵 )2 for structural fill

Where, k = scaled coefficient of subgrade reaction and B = foundation width.

4.5.3 Slabs on Grade

The design requirements for slabs on grade are provided in Table 6.

Table 6: Design Recommendations for Slabs on Grade

Item Description

Support for slabs on grade A minimum of 4 inches of crushed gravel underlain by a minimum of

12 inches of structural fill that is properly placed and compacted.

Modulus of subgrade reaction 150 psi/in in Northern Area (see Note 1 in Table 4) 100 psi/in in

Southern Area (see Note 2 in Table 5)

Modulus of structural fill reaction 300 psi/in (see Note 1 in Table 4)

4.5.4 Lateral Pressure

Excavation walls and retaining walls will be subjected to horizontal loads from the lateral earth pressure of backfill. When granular fill is lightly compacted, drained, and the surface of the soil slope behind the wall is horizontal, the backfill may be considered equivalent to a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot

(pcf) for active pressure and 55 pcf for static (at-rest) pressure.

4.5.5 Lateral Resistance

Resistance to lateral loads at the bottom of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.3. Passive resistance provided by properly placed and compacted granular structural fill above the water table may be considered equivalent to a fluid with a density of 250 pcf. Below the water table, this granular

SUNRISE ENGINEERING • UDWR • LOA FISH HATCHERY ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 7 soil should be considered equivalent to a fluid with a density of 150 pcf. Note that fill against the sides of footings should be placed and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density as indicated in

Section 4.3 (Fill Material).

4.5.6 Drainage

Drainage design should provide for…