UTFLAP_2496_1_Final_Pavement_Report.pdf

Pavement Design Report Ephraim Canyon Road

UT FLAP 2496(1)

Sanpete County, Utah

Januay 12, 2018

Submitted To:

CH2M

9189 South Jamaica Street Englewood, CO 80112

By:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

1321 Bannock Street, Ste. 200 Denver, CO 80204

23-1-01638-001

1321 BANNOCK STREET, SUITE 200

DENVER, COLORADO 80204-4077

303-825-3800 FAX: 303-825-3801

TDD 1-800-833-6388

www.shannonwilson.com 23-1-01638-001

January 12, 2018

CH2M

9189 South Jamaica Street Englewood, CO 80112

Attn: Ms. Erin James, P.E.

RE: PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT, EPHRAIM CANYON ROAD, UT FLAP 2496(1),

SANPETE COUNTY, UTAH

We are pleased to submit our pavement design report for the above-referenced project. The enclosed report summarizes subsurface conditions encountered in a subsurface exploration program, laboratory tests, and pavement design recommendations for the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at 303-825-3800.

Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Mark Vessely Vice President

KDD:MJV/kdd

Encl: Pavement Design Report

23-1-01638-001-L1/wp/ksm

23-1-01638-001-R1/wp/ksm 23-1-01638-001 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK

3.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

4.1 Subsurface Explorations

4.2 Laboratory Test Results

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Subsurface Conditions

5.2 Groundwater

5.3 Corrosive Soil

6.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

7.0 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

7.1 Pavement Materials

7.2 Earthwork and Grading

7.2.1 Subgrade Preparation and Proof Rolling

7.2.2 Fill Placement and Compaction

8.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION

9.0 CLOSURE

10.0 REFERENCES

TABLES

1 Corrosivity Ratings Based on Soil Resistivity 2 Sulfate Exposure per ACI 3 Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM)

Flexible Pavement Design Parameters 4 Recommended Materials for Pavements

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

ii

FIGURES

1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Plan (2 sheets)

APPENDICES

A Subsurface Explorations B Laboratory Test Results C Exploration Photographs D Pavement Design Calculations E Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

EPHRAIM CANYON ROAD

UT FLAP 2496(1)

SANPETE COUNTY, UTAH

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration program and provides pavement design recommendations for the Ephraim Canyon Road, UT FLAP 2496(1) outside of the town of Ephraim in Sanpete County, Utah. The project consists of paving 3.8 miles of Ephraim Canyon Road, replacing one culvert, and improving one embankment area along the road. This report summarizes our subsurface explorations and laboratory testing, and presents recommendations for design and construction of the pavement features based on preliminary design plans provided by CH2M.

This pavement design report should not be used without our approval if any of the following occurs:

Assumptions stated in this report have changed, Project details change or new information becomes available such that our recommendations may be affected, and

More than five years has passed since the date of this report.

If any of these occur, we should be retained to review the applicability of our recommendations.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK

Our services were conducted in general accordance with Purchase Order Number 10006-7-108200 with CH2M Hill, Inc. (CH2M) dated July 25, 2017, and the Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) Scope of Work for Contract Number DTFH68-16-D-00007, Task Order Number 0019 dated July 14, 2017. We completed the following tasks for the project.

Coordinated subcontractors and traffic control for drilling borings, Observed, logged, and collected soil samples from 16 borings, Completed laboratory testing on selected soil samples from the borings, Evaluated geotechnical data and completed pavement design, and Prepared this pavement design report.

Our scope of services did not include performing a traffic study, evaluating geotechnical hazards (including embankment slumps, rock falls, landslides, and earth flows), or evaluating the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air, on or below or around this site. If such contamination exists, it would not be possible to determine it within this limited scope of work.

3.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The project site is located in the Manti-La Sal National Forest approximately 1.5 miles east of Ephraim, Utah (see Figure 1). The proposed roadway improvements begin at the end of the existing pavement and extend approximately 3.8 miles east to Willow Creek Road. The project also includes an option (Option X) to extend the project an additional 1.1 miles to the Lake Hill Campground access road (see Figure 2).

The existing topography of the roadway is mountainous with steep grade changes on either side of the roadway. The current roadway is surfaced with aggregate for the entirety of the project length. At the time of our explorations, the thickness of the aggregate surfacing was variable, and it was generally smooth with some localized areas of “washboard”-like rutting of the aggregate surfacing.

The proposed improvements to the roadway include paving and culvert replacement. However, the following report only addresses pavement design recommendations as outlined in the Scope of Work. The current roadway bench is 28 feet wide for a majority of the alignment. The proposed roadway paving will consist of a 26-foot roadway section with drainage ditches installed adjacent to the pavement. No roadway widening is anticipated, and the proposed pavement will predominately be placed on the existing roadway surfacing with some minor grade corrections (adjustments to the super elevation and profile). We understand these adjustments will be on the order of plus/minus 6 inches and will be made by re-working the existing roadway surfacing to the desired grade.

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

4.1 Subsurface Explorations

Shannon & Wilson (Shannon & Wilson) implemented a field exploration program to evaluate the thickness of existing aggregate and subgrade/subsurface conditions. The exploration program was conducted on August 3, 2017, and consisted of drilling 15 borings (designated SW- P-01 through SW-P-15) for pavement evaluation and 1 boring (designated SW-C-01) for a proposed culvert evaluation. All borings were drilled using a track-mounted drill rig. The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2. Appendix A describes the procedures used to complete the drilling and sampling of the borings and presents individual boring logs with an explanation of the symbols and terminology used. Appendix C contains photographs of the explorations locations during drilling.

4.2 Laboratory Test Results

Shannon & Wilson completed laboratory testing to determine index and engineering properties of samples retrieved from the borings. Laboratory tests included natural water content, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, compaction (moisture-density relationship), California bearing ratio (CBR), and corrosion testing. Laboratory test results and a discussion of testing procedures are included in Appendix B. The natural water contents, Atterberg limits, and percent fines are also indicated on the individual boring logs in Appendix A.

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

For purposes of our pavement analyses, it was necessary for us to assume that the results of the explorations and testing are representative of conditions throughout the project site. However, as discussed below, subsurface conditions should be expected to vary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by a limited boring and testing program. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs.

5.1 Subsurface Conditions

Based on the borings completed during the exploration program, the existing roadway aggregate surfacing varies from 12 inches to greater than 2 feet. Classification of the aggregate consisted mainly of a medium dense to dense, clayey gravel with sand to clayey sand with gravel with varying percentages of fines (material smaller than the No. 200 sieve); American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) classification was typically A-2-4 to A-2-6. Information was not available for the original construction of the roadway, but we understand that the aggregate was placed in 2007 by Sanpete County for road improvements.

The pavement subgrade below the aggregate surfacing was variable and generally consisted of medium dense to very dense, clayey sand with gravel to clayey gravel with sand (A-2-4 to A-2-6 soils), and stiff to very stiff, lean clay with sand (A-6 and A-7-6 soils). Boring SW-P-12 indicated sandstone cobbles were observed at approximately 5 feet below the ground surface, and boring SW-P-04 encountered a non-plastic silt with sand layer approximately 6 feet below the roadway aggregate surfacing. Table B-1 and Figure B-1 contain a summary of the pavement subgrade fines content, plasticity, and the corresponding AASHTO soil classification.

5.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling; however, groundwater fluctuations are possible and likely depend on many factors, including seasonal variations, and local precipitation. We do not anticipate groundwater will influence design or construction of the project.

5.3 Corrosive Soil

Some soils can be corrosive to substructure elements or have adverse reaction to subgrade soil stabilization. To assist in estimating the corrosion potential at the culvert location and for a general evaluation, soil samples from borings SW-C-01, SW-P-01, SW-P-07, and SW-P-14 were tested for pH, resistivity, water soluble sulfates, and chlorides. The results are presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B.

The resistivity measured in the samples ranged from 725 ohms centimeter (ohm-cm) to 1,500 ohm-cm. Roberge (2012) provides corrosivity ratings based on soil resistivity (Table 1).

The resistivity value measured in the sample indicates extremely to highly corrosive subsurface conditions.

TABLE 1

CORROSIVITY RATINGS BASED ON SOIL RESISTIVITY

Soil Resistivity (Ohm-cm) Corrosivity Rating

> 20,000 Essentially noncorrosive 10,000 – 20,000 Mildly corrosive 5,000 – 10,000 Moderately corrosive 3,000 – 5,000 Corrosive 1,000 – 3,000 Highly corrosive

< 1,000 Extremely corrosive Ohm-cm = ohms centimeter

The concentration of water soluble sulfates measured in the samples were less than 0.01 percent by weight. Based on classifications as defined by ACI-318-14 (2014) (Table 2), this suggests a negligible exposure of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to site soils (exposure class S0).

TABLE 2

SULFATE EXPOSURE PER ACI

Water Soluble Sulfate in Soil (Percent by Weight) Sulfate Exposure

< 0.10 Negligible (S0)

0.10 – < 0.20 Moderate (S1)

0.20 – 2.0 Severe (S2) > 2.0 Very Severe (S3)

Lab testing for pH indicated results varying between 7.5 and 8.0. Typical soil pH levels range between 5.0 and 8.0 (Roberge, 2012).

We recommend that a specialist in corrosion-resistance design review the results included in Table B-1 to determine actual construction materials and methods based on the test results.

6.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Performance of a pavement system depends on the pavement material and thicknesses, subgrade strength, traffic loads and repetitions, design life, and subgrade drainage characteristics. Our pavement design and results are based on the design procedures presented in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures (AGDPS), with guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), dated March 2008. We understand the proposed improvements to Ephraim Canyon Road will constitute a 3R project and pavements will be designed for a 20-year design life.

Performance of a pavement system depends on the pavement material and thicknesses, subgrade strength, traffic loads and repetitions, design life, and subgrade drainage characteristics. Based on our understanding, the road is primarily an access road for lightweight vehicles (passenger cars) and heavier recreational vehicles (RV) to the campgrounds. In addition, we understand that the road is also an access route infrequently used for logging trucks. Based on the scoping report, the anticipated roadway traffic volume will consist of an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 400 vehicles per day. Further discussions from the October 11, 2017, project meeting minutes indicates the truck traffic is approximately 5 percent of the total ADT and consists predominately of RVs with the occasional truck. Based on discussions with CH2M, we assumed 90 percent of the truck traffic is RVs (pickup truck hauling an RV trailer) with the remaining 10 percent composed of a FHWA Class 7 truck (a single unit, 4 axle truck). For our analysis, we assumed a growth rate of 2 percent based on recommendations in the PDDM. We estimate the design traffic loading (an 18-kip equivalent single-axle loading [ESAL]) value of 67,000 (refer to the ESAL calculation worksheet in Appendix D).

To determine the existing subgrade strength, we performed eight California bearing ratio (CBR) tests on subgrade samples remolded to approximately the maximum dry density using standard compaction effort. CBR test results ranged from 2.7 to 12.1 percent. We used Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT, 2017) published correlation to convert the CBR to a resilient modulus value. In accordance with PDDM design procedures, the average resilient modulus was used for the design of Ephraim Canyon Road, a value of approximately 7,330 pounds per square inch (psi).

We understand that there may be a cost benefit to reusing the existing roadway surfacing as a base coarse layer in the pavement section. A potential limitation with reusing the existing aggregate surfacing is that the existing surface aggregate has a high percentage of cohesive fines (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) and relatively poor drainage characteristics. Thus, for our analysis, we assumed poor quality of drainage for the re-used roadway surfacing option, and assumed the lowest recommended drainage coefficient provided in Table 2.4 of the AGDPS, a value of 0.4.

Further, we understand some minor grade corrections will be implemented to adjust the roadway cross sectional slopes in portions of the alignment. In general, the thickness of the material across the site varied, but the thinnest observed section of roadway surfacing was 12 inches. For our analysis, we assumed at least 6 inches of existing roadway surfacing will be left in place.

Based on guidance from the PDDM, the following table summarizes design parameters used in the flexible pavement analysis. Appendix D contains our pavement design calculations.

TABLE 3

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN MANUAL (PDDM)

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS

Design Parameter Design Value

Pavement Design Life 20 years Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR 7,330 psi Reliability, R 75% Standard Normal Deviate, ZR -0.674 Serviceability Loss, ∆PSI 2.2 Overall Deviation, So 0.49 Structural Layer Coefficient for Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (HACP) 0.44 Structural Layer Coefficient for Existing Roadway Surfacing 0.08 Structural Layer Coefficient for New Untreated Base Course (UTBC) 0.10 Drainage Coefficient of existing roadway surfacing and new UTBC 0.4 psi = pounds per square inch

Using the above parameters, we recommend the following preliminary pavement sections for consideration:

4.0 inches of HACP over 2 inches of UTBC over a minimum of 6 inches of existing roadway surfacing.

While the PDDM recommends a minimum UTBC thickness of 4 inches (as UTBC lift thickness are based on nominal maximum aggregate sizes of the aggregate), we understand that CFLHD is considering the thinner 2 inch-thick section as only 2 inches of UTBC is required to provide adequate structure support.

7.0 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

The applicability of the design recommendations provided in this report is contingent on good construction practice and adherence to the project specifications. Poor construction techniques may alter conditions from those on which our recommendations are based and result in poor performance. Our analyses assume that this project will be constructed according to FP-14 U.S.

Customary Units (USDOT and FHWA, 2014) standards. The following sections provide additional construction considerations for this project.

7.1 Pavement Materials

The following table summarizes our recommendations for pavement material selection. All specification sections reference the FP-14 U.S. Customary Units, (U.S. DOT and FHWA, 2014).

TABLE 4

RECOMMENDED MATERIALS FOR PAVEMENTS

Material Specification Additional Requirements/Comments

UTBC Section 302 -

HACP Section 401 • Aggregate must meet requirements for ESAL values less than 300,000

Binder - • Use Superpave PG 64-28 Binder

Our recommended pavement thicknesses presented in Table 4 require the use of the specific FP-14 specification identified in Table 4. If an alternate base course or asphalt specification from FP-14 is selected, pavement sections will need to be redesigned and the pavement thicknesses presented in Table 3 may increase.

7.2 Earthwork and Grading

Earthwork, including placement of fill and subgrade preparation, should conform to the requirements provided in the FP-14 and the recommendations provided in the following sections.

7.2.1 Subgrade Preparation and Proof Rolling

The existing subgrade within the roadway limits should scarified and moisture conditioned and compacted in accordance with Section 204.06 of FP-14. Proof-rolls should be completed with a fully-loaded, tandem-axle, 10-yard dump truck or equivalent. Areas that are identified as being loose, soft, or yielding during proof-rolling should be compacted in place, removed and reconditioned, or replaced with Backfill Material conforming to FP-14 (Section 704.03). The subgrade backfill material should be compacted to dense and unyielding condition and to the requirements described in Section 7.2.2. Care should be taken during proof-rolling and subgrade preparation to avoid disturbing subgrade soils and supporting soils that will remain in place, as they can rut and pump under repeated construction traffic. The final subgrade surface should be sloped to promote positive drainage and kept free of water at all times.

Leaving the subgrade elevation high until final grading begins is a means to reduce the potential for disturbance to the final subgrade materials. Additionally, subgrades should be protected from drying or wetting in excess of what is required to achieve the specified compaction requirements.

7.2.2 Fill Placement and Compaction

All fill material placed should consist of soil that is free of organics, contaminants, debris, rock fragments larger than 3 inches. In addition, fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts, with the loose lift thickness not to exceed 12 inches for heavy equipment compactors and 4 inches for hand-operated compactors and be compacted to a dense and unyielding condition. Thinner lifts may be required, depending on the contractor’s equipment.

Backfill compaction requirements should be in accordance with Section 204.11 of FP-14. Based on our laboratory testing and for preliminary planning purposes, we anticipate that compaction requirements would follow FP-14 204.11(c) but this should be confirmed during construction.

8.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION

Geotechnical design recommendations are developed from a limited number of explorations and tests. Therefore, recommendations may need to be adjusted in the field. To this end, we recommend that a construction observation and monitoring program be implemented for the project and that Shannon & Wilson be retained to monitor the geotechnical aspects of construction, particularly excavations, fill placement, and subgrade preparation. This monitoring would allow us to confirm that conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations and provide recommendations should conditions be revealed during construction that are different from those anticipated.

9.0 CLOSURE

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of CH2M and CFLHD for the use in design of the Ephraim Canyon Road Project. It should be made available to prospective contractors and/or the Contractor for information on factual data only, and not as warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted from the exploration logs and presented in the discussion of subsurface conditions included in this report.

The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the project, a limited surficial reconnaissance, and a limited number of subsurface explorations and laboratory test results. We assume that these explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions beneath the site; that is, the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the explorations.

10.0 REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, Farmington Hills, Michigan, ACI 318-14.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993, AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures: Washington, D.C., American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Roberge, P.R., 2012, Handbook of corrosion engineering (2nd ed.): N. Y., McGraw-Hill, 1078 p.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2008, Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual: U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, available from http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/manuals/pddm/.

U.S. DOT and FHWA, 2014, Federal Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-14 English Units: U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, available from http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/.

Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), 2017, Pavement Design Manual of Instruction, available from: https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=20339215312776663 http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/manuals/pddm/ http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/ https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=20339215312776663

Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by

Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth ™ Mapping Service.

NOTE

23-1-01638-001

F i l e n a m e

I E

F

D

E N s

C

F L

E p h r a m

C

P a v e m e n t

I n v D r a f t i n g F i g d w g

D a t e

L o g i n d a a

MT

0 1 2

Approximate Scale in Miles

VICINITY MAP

FIG. 1

V a s q u e z

B u l e v a r d

R a c e

S t

Y o r k

S t

SALT LAKE

CITY

St. George

Logan

Ogden

Provo

Moab

Richfield

Price

Vernal

E. Center St.

S. 300 E.

Ephraim Canyon

Road

Project

Location

January 2018

Ephraim Canyon Road

UT FLAP 2496(1)

Sanpete County, Utah

EPHRAIM

Ephraim

MORONI

MT. PLEASANT

Fig. 2, Sheet 2

Fig. 2, Sheet 1 granted by Google Earth™ Mapping Service.

MT

LEGEND

NOTE

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

23-1-01638-001

Sheet 1 of 2

FIG. 2

Boring Designation and

Approximate Location

500 1000

Approximate Scale in Feet

M A

T C

H L

I N

E

S

H E

E T

Skyline Villas Rd

SR 39

January 2018 Approximate Ephram

Canyon Road Centerline

Western Project

Extent

F i l e n a m e

I E

F

D

E N s

C

F L

E p h r a

P a v e m e n t

I n v D r a f t i n g F i g d t e g i n d a a

Ephraim Canyon Road granted by Google Earth™ Mapping Service.

MT

LEGEND

NOTE

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

23-1-01638-001January 2018

Sheet 2 of 2

FIG. 2

M A

T C

H L

I N

E

S

H E

E T

Boring Designation and

Approximate Location

500 1000

Approximate Scale in Feet

Willow Creek Rd

Road to

Lake Hill

Campground

Approximate Ephram

Canyon Road Centerline

Eastern Extent of Option X

Western Extent of Option X

F i l e n a m e

I E

F

D

E N s

C

F L

E p h r a

P a v e m e n t

I n v D r a f t i n g F i g d t e g i n d a a

Ephraim Canyon Road

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

23-1-01638-001-R1-AA/wp/ksm 23-1-01638-001

A-i

A.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... A-1

A.2 EXPLORATIONS .......................................................................................................... A-1 A.2.1 Soil Classification System ................................................................................ A-1

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ...................................................................... A-2

A.2.3 Bulk Samples .................................................................................................... A-2

FIGURES

A-1 Soil Classification and Log Key (3 sheets)

A-2 Log of Boring SW-C-01

A-3 Log of Boring SW-P-01

A-4 Log of Boring SW-P-02

A-5 Log of Boring SW-P-03

A-6 Log of Boring SW-P-04

A-7 Log of Boring SW-P-05

A-8 Log of Boring SW-P-06

A-9 Log of Boring SW-P-07

A-10 Log of Boring SW-P-08

A-11 Log of Boring SW-P-09

A-12 Log of Boring SW-P-10

A-13 Log of Boring SW-P-11

A-14 Log of Boring SW-P-12

A-15 Log of Boring SW-P-13

A-16 Log of Boring SW-P-14

A-17 Log of Boring SW-P-15

A-1

A.1 INTRODUCTION

The field exploration program for the Ephraim Canyon Road Design Project consisted of drilling and sampling 16 geotechnical borings on August 3, 2017. Borings were designated as SW-C-01 and SW-P-01 through SW-P-15. The letter P designates a pavement boring while the letter C designates a culvert boring. The boring locations were surveyed for position and elevation and provided to us by CH2M, with the exceptions of borings SW-P-03 and SW-P-10 which were located by a recreational grade, hand held GPS unit. The survey locations are indicated on the individual boring logs and the approximate locations are indicated on Figure 2. A representative from Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson) observed the drilling and sampling operations, retrieved representative samples for laboratory testing, and prepared logs of our subsurface explorations. The methods used to conduct the field exploration program are described below.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination and utility locates) by

Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in Figures A-2 through A-17. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and results of laboratory testing. All borings were drilled by Direct Push Services using a track-mounted

GEOProbe drill rig.

Pavement borings were generally sampled to an approximate depth of 6 feet below the road surface and the culvert boring was sampled to a depth of 10.5 feet. All borings were advanced using 6-inch diameter hollow-stem-auger, and backfilled with drill cuttings.

A.2.1 Soil Classification System

During drilling, the Shannon & Wilson representative collected soil/rock samples and prepared a field log of the boring. Soil classifications were based on ASTM D2487, Standard

Test Method for Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes, and ASTM D2488, Standard

Recommended Practice for Description of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The system is called the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and is summarized in Figure A-1.

A-2

Subgrade soils that influence pavement performance were also classified in accordance with AASHTO M145, Standard Specification for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate

Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes. Both USCS and AASHTO classification systems are provided on the boring logs.

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Disturbed samples were obtained in general accordance with the Standard Penetration

Test (SPT) (ASTM Designation: D1586). The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter, 1.375-inch inside diameter split-spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. An automatic hammer system was used to advance the samplers. During sampling, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the number of blows for each 6-inch increment of penetration and summed the blow counts for the last two 6-inch increments. This sum is recorded as the penetration resistance number, or N-value. If high penetration resistance prevented driving the total length of the sampler, the

Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the partial penetration depth and blow count.

The N-values provide a means for evaluating the relative density or compactness of cohesionless

(granular) soils and consistency or stiffness of cohesive (fine-grained) soils (see Figure A-1).

The N-values are shown in the individual boring logs. Representative portions of the split-spoon sample were placed in an airtight resealable plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for further analysis.

A.2.3 Bulk Samples

Bulk soil samples were also obtained by collecting the drill cuttings, generally from 0 to

4.5 feet of select borings. Approximately 30 to 40 pounds of cuttings were placed in a plastic bag and transported to GeoStrata laboratory in Salt Lake City for further analysis and testing. A total of 8 bulk samples were obtained during the drilling program.

Sanpete County, Utah

23-1-01638-001January 2018

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, from below water table

FIG. A-1

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following pages. Soil descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and laboratory testing procedures (ASTM D2487), if performed.

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SPECIFICATIONS

Hammer:

Sampler:

N-Value:

Dry

Moist

Wet

MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS

Modifying (Secondary)

Precedes major constituent

Major

Minor Follows major constituent

1All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve.

2The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor.

3Determined based on behavior.

4Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.

5Whichever is the lesser constituent.

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(less than 50% fines)1

NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer efficiency, overburden, or other factors.

PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS

RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY

Sand or Gravel 4

30% or more coarse-grained:

Sandy or Gravelly 4

More than 12% fine-grained:

Silty or Clayey 3

15% to 30% coarse-grained:

with Sand or with Gravel 4

30% or more total coarse-grained and lesser coarse-grained constituent is 15% or more:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

RELATIVE

DENSITY

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more fines)1

COHESIVE SOILS

< 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

1Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume.

2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.

Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead 2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm

NOTE: If automatic hammers are used, blow counts shown on boring logs should be adjusted to account for efficiency of hammer.

10 to 30 inches long Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches Barrel O.D. = 2 inches

Sum blow counts for second and third 6-inch increments.

Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or less; 10 blows for 0 inches.

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

5% to 12% fine-grained:

with Silt or with Clay 3

15% or more of a second coarse-grained constituent:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

< 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 45%

50 to 100%

Surface Cement Seal

Asphalt or Cap

Slough

Inclinometer or Non-perforated Casing

Vibrating Wire Piezometer

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

< 4 4 - 10

10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

DESCRIPTION

< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)

#200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.)

#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.)

#10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.)

SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE

#4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.)

3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)

3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)

> 12 in. (305 mm)

Fine Coarse

Fine Medium Coarse

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

FINES

SAND

Sheet 1 of 3

S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS

CONSTITUENT2

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Silt, Lean Clay, Elastic Silt, or

Fat Clay 3

PERCENTAGES TERMS 1, 2

Trace

Few

Little

Some

Mostly

WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS

Bentonite Cement Grout

Bentonite Grout

Bentonite Chips

Silica Sand

Perforated or Screened Casing

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

3-

1-

E P

H R

A

IM

C A

N Y

O N

R O

A D

.G P

J S

W N

E W

.G D

T

0/

/1

UT FLAP 2496(1)

Sanpete County, Utah

January 2018

GC

SC

Inorganic

Organic

(more than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve)

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

CH

OH

ML

CL

TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

Gravel

Sand

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

Sheet 2 of 3

Gravels

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

SW

(more than 12% fines)

Silts and Clays

Silts and Clays

(more than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve)

(50% or more of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 sieve)

(liquid limit less than 50)

(liquid limit 50 or more)

Organic

Inorganic

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

SM

Sands

Silty or Clayey Gravel

Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Silt

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

HIGHLY-

ORGANIC

SOILS

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

GW

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

(less than 5% fines)

PT

(more than 12% fines)

MH

SP

GP

GM

Silty or Clayey Sand

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

(50% or more passes the No.

200 sieve)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt

Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;

Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay

NOTES

1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, i.e., SP-SM, Sand with Silt) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart. Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types are a combination of the two graphic symbols (e.g., SP and SM).

2. Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CL/ML, Lean Clay to Silt; SP-SM/SM, Sand with Silt to Silty Sand) indicate that the soil properties are close to the defining boundary between two groups.

Peat or other highly organic soils (see

ASTM D4427)

FIG. A-1

OL

(less than 5% fines)

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

3-

1-

E P

H R

A

IM

C A

N Y

O N

R O

A D

.G P

J S

W N

E W

.G D

T

0/

/1

NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

(Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488)

UT FLAP 2496(1)

Sanpete County, Utah

January 2018

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.

Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.

Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.

Smoothly curved sides with no edges.

Width/thickness ratio > 3.

Length/width ratio > 3.

Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within the range of grain sizes present, one or more sizes are missing (Gap Graded). Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Full range and even distribution of grain sizes present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure Will not crumble or break with finger pressure

Weak

Moderate

Strong

VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA

A 1/8-in. thread cannot be rolled at any water content.

A thread can barely be rolled and a lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.

A thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. A lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.

It take considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. A thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. A lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 3

Interbedded

Laminated

Fissured

Slickensided

Blocky

Lensed

Homogeneous

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick; singular: bed.

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick; singular:

lamination.

Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance.

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy;

sometimes striated.

Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps that resist further breakdown.

Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay.

Same color and appearance throughout.

At Time of Drilling Diameter Elevation Feet Iron Oxide Gallons Horizontal Hollow Stem Auger Inside Diameter Inches Pounds Magnesium Oxide Millimeter Manganese Oxide Not Applicable or Not Available Nonplastic Outside Diameter Observation Well Pounds per Cubic Foot Photo-Ionization Detector Pressuremeter Test Parts per Million Pounds per Square Inch Polyvinyl Chloride Rotations per Minute Standard Penetration Test Unified Soil Classification System Unconfined Compressive Strength Vibrating Wire Piezometer Vertical Weight of Hammer Weight of Rods Weight

ATD

Diam.

Elev.

ft.

FeO gal.

Horiz.

HSA

I.D.

in.

lbs.

MgO mm

MnO

NA

NP

O.D.

OW

pcf

PID

PMT

ppm psi

PVC

rpm

SPT

USCS

qu

VWP

Vert.

WOH

WOR

Wt.

STRUCTURE TERMS1

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

1Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

2Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Poorly Graded

Well-Graded

Irregular patches of different colors.

Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals.

Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt and/or clay matrix.

Material brought to surface by drilling.

Material that caved from sides of borehole.

Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.

Mottled

Bioturbated

Diamict

Cuttings

Slough

Sheared

DESCRIPTION

Nonplastic

Low

Medium

High

ADDITIONAL TERMS

PLASTICITY2

CEMENTATION TERMS1

GRADATION TERMS

APPROX.

PLASITICTY

INDEX

RANGE

< 4

4 to 10

10 to 20

> 20

PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE TERMS1

FIG. A-1

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

3-

1-

E P

H R

A

IM

C A

N Y

O N

R O

A D

.G P

J S

W N

E W

.G D

T

0/

/1

Medium dense, light gray-brown, Clayey Sand (SC); dry to moist; lensed. A-2-4

Stiff, dark brown to brown, Sandy Clay (CL);

moist; few gravel. A-7-6

Very dense, light gray-brown, Clayey Sand (SC); moist. A-2-6

Medium dense, brown, Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC); moist; lensed. A-6

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 8/03/2017

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4 G ro un dw at er N ot E nc ou nt er ed D ur in g D ril lin g.

2.0

4.0

8.0

10.5

SOIL DESCRIPTION

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

23-1-01638-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

S ym bo l

Hollow-Stem Auger

DPS

GEO Probe Track-Mount

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

Northing:

Easting:

Station:

Offset:

LOG OF BORING SW-C-01

January 2018

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

10.5 ft.

6554.0 ft.

6,927,862 ft.

1,631,828 ft.

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

Ephraim Canyon Road

UT FLAP 2496(1)

Sanpete County, Utah

D ep th , f t.

20 40

REV 3

FIG. A-2

S am pl es

6.5 in.

Automatic

20 40 60

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

3-

1-

E P

H R

A

IM

C A

N Y

O N

R O

A D

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/1 9/

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

140 lbs / 30 inches (blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop:

Very dense to dense, light gray-brown, Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC); dry. A-2-4

Very dense to dense, light gray-brown, Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC); moist. A-6

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 8/03/2017

S-1

G-1

S-2

S-3

G ro un dw at er

N ot

E nc ou nt er ed

D ur in g

D ril lin g.

4.0

5.0

SOIL DESCRIPTION

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

23-1-01638-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

S ym bo l

Hollow-Stem Auger

DPS

GEO Probe Track-Mount

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

Northing:

Easting:

Station:

Offset:

LOG OF BORING SW-P-01

January 2018

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

Grab Sample

5 ft.

6139.6 ft.

6,928,911 ft.

1,626,917 ft.

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

Ephraim Canyon Road

UT FLAP 2496(1)

Sanpete County, Utah

D ep th , f t.

20 40

REV 3

FIG. A-3

S am pl es

6.5 in.

Automatic

20 40 60

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

3-

1-

E P

H R

A

IM

C A

N Y

O N

R O

A D

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/1 9/

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

140 lbs / 30 inches (blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop:

50/6"

50/6"

Medium dense, light gray-brown, Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC); dry. A-2-6

Very dense, gray-brown, Silty Sand (SM);

moist. A-2-4

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 8/03/2017

S-1

S-2

S-3

G ro un dw at er

N ot

E nc ou nt er ed

D ur in g

D ril lin g.

4.0

4.3

SOIL DESCRIPTION

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

23-1-01638-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

S ym bo l

Hollow-Stem Auger

DPS

GEO Probe Track-Mount

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

Northing:

Easting:

Station:

Offset:

LOG OF BORING SW-P-02

January 2018

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

4.3 ft.

6339.2 ft.

6,928,400 ft.

1,629,293 ft.

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

Ephraim Canyon Road

UT FLAP 2496(1)

Sanpete County, Utah

D ep th , f t.

20 40

REV 3

FIG. A-4

S am pl es

6.5 in.

Automatic

20 40 60

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

3-

1-

E P

H R

A

IM

C A

N Y

O N

R O

A D

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/1 9/

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

140 lbs / 30 inches (blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE

50/4"

Gravel with Sand (GC); dry to moist. A-2-6

Stiff, brown, Sandy Lean Clay (CL); moist.

A-7-6

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 8/03/2017

S-1

G-1

S-2

S-3

G ro un dw at er

N ot

E nc ou nt er ed

D ur in g

D ril lin g.

1.0

6.0

SOIL DESCRIPTION

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

23-1-01638-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

S ym bo l

Hollow-Stem Auger

DPS

GEO Probe Track-Mount

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

Northing:

Easting:

Station:

Offset:

LOG OF BORING SW-P-03

January 2018

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

Grab Sample

6 ft.

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

Ephraim Canyon Road

UT FLAP 2496(1)

Sanpete County, Utah

D ep th , f t.

20 40

REV 3

FIG. A-5

S am pl es

6.5 in.

Automatic

20 40 60

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

3-

1-

E P

H R

A

IM

C A

N Y

O N

R O

A D

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/1 9/

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

140 lbs / 30 inches (blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Gravel with Sand (GC) ; dry to moist. A-2-4

Loose, brown to dark brown, Clayey Sand (SC); moist. A-6

Very dense, light gray-brown, Silt with Sand and Gravel (ML); moist; occasional cobbles inferred from drill action. A-4

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 8/03/2017

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

G ro un dw at er

N ot

E nc ou nt er ed

D ur in g

D ril lin g.

2.0

6.0

9.3

SOIL DESCRIPTION

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

23-1-01638-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

S ym bo l

Hollow-Stem Auger

DPS

GEO Probe Track-Mount

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

Northing:

Easting:

Station:

Offset:

LOG OF BORING SW-P-04

January 2018

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

9.25 ft.

6580.9 ft.

6,927,822 ft.

1,632,128 ft.

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

Ephraim Canyon Road

UT FLAP 2496(1)

Sanpete County, Utah

D ep th , f t.

20 40

REV 3

FIG. A-6

S am pl es

6.5 in.

Automatic

20 40 60

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

3-

1-

E P

H R

A

IM

C A

N Y

O N

R O

A D

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/1 9/

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

140 lbs / 30 inches (blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop:

NP 50/3"

50/3"

Dense, light gray-brown, Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC); dry. A-2-4

Stiff to Hard, light gray-brown, Lean Clay with Sand (CL); moist. A-7-6

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 8/03/2017

S-1

G-1

S-2

S-3

G ro un dw at er

N ot

E nc ou nt er ed

D ur in g

D ril lin g.

2.0

6.0

SOIL DESCRIPTION

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

23-1-01638-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

S ym bo l

Hollow-Stem Auger

DPS

GEO Probe Track-Mount

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

Northing:

Easting:

Station:

Offset:

LOG OF BORING SW-P-05

January 2018

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

Grab Sample

6 ft.

6749.4 ft.

6,927,814 ft.

1,633,488 ft.

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

Ephraim Canyon Road

UT FLAP 2496(1)

Sanpete County, Utah

D ep th , f t.

20 40

REV 3

FIG. A-7

S am pl es

6.5 in.

Automatic

20 40 60

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

3-

1-

E P

H R

A

IM

C A

N Y

O N

R O

A D

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/1 9/

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

140 lbs / 30 inches (blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE with Gravel (SC); dry. A-2-4

Very stiff, dark brown to brown, Sandy Lean Clay (CL); moist; blocky. A-6

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED…