MCRR_Pavement Report_Final_20221107_Revised_20230106 - signed.pdf

REPORT COVER PAGE

Pavement Report

Upper Mill Creek Canyon Road Improvements, UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

Salt Lake County, Utah

November 7, 2022

January 6, 2023 (Revision 1)

Terracon Project No. 61215174

Prepared for:

DJ&A, P.C.

Missoula, MT

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Midvale, UT

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 6949 S High Tech Dr ive, Suite 100 Midvale, Utah 84047

P (801) 545 8500 F (801) 545 8600 terracon.com

REPORT COVER LETTER TO SIGN

DJ&A, P.C.

2000 Maple Street

Missoula, MT 59808

Attn: Mr. Jon Pederson, P.E.

P: (406) 549-6371

E: jonathan@djanda.com

Re: Pavement Report

Upper Mill Creek Canyon Road Improvements, UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

Mill Creek Canyon Road

Salt Lake County, Utah

Terracon Project No. 61215174

Dear Mr. Pederson:

We have completed the Pavement Report services for the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with Mill Creek Canyon Road UT FLAP SLA 10(1) MOD

P00002: Preliminary Design Scope of Work (SOW), dated August 11, 2021. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and pavement section thickness for the proposed project. This report addresses 30 percent of review comments received from Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) and

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and was revised to address 50 percent review comments from the United States Forest Service.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Jeff Gilbert, P.E. (UT) Rick Chesnut, P.E., P.G.

Project Engineer Senior Principal

SME Review by:

Joe Phillips, P.E.

Senior Engineering Consultant

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION

SITE CONDITIONS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

EARTHWORK

PAVEMENTS

CORROSIVITY

GENERAL COMMENTS

Note: Orange Bold text in the report indicates a referenced section heading. These are hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section. Clicking on the GeoReport logo will bring you back to this page.

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUC TION

Pavement Report

Upper Mill Creek Canyon Road Improvements, UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

Mill Creek Canyon Road

Salt Lake County, Utah Terracon Project No. 61215174

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our pavement subsurface exploration and pavement section thickness engineering services performed for the above referenced project (UMCCRI). The project is located in Mill Creek Canyon Road in Salt Lake County, Utah and includes the upper

4.5 miles of the canyon road. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Subsurface soil (and rock) conditions ■ Site preparation and earthwork

■ Groundwater conditions ■ Pavement section thickness

The geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the advancement of 11 test borings to depths of approximately 5 to 9 feet below site grade. Ten borings were planned in the SOW; however, an additional boring (PB-07-TS) was advanced in the Thousand Springs area where surface water is located on both sides of the roadway due to the creek and nearby spring.

A bulk sample was also collected from the road shoulder near PB-01 to gather additional material for laboratory testing. A pavement condition assessment was also completed at the exploration locations using the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system for asphalt roads.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration

Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs and/or as separate graphs in the Exploration Results section. Pavement condition assessment results are also included in the Exploration Results section.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.

UMCCRI, UT FLAP SLA 10(1) ■ Salt Lake County, Utah

January 6, 2023 (Revision 1) ■ Terracon Project No. 61215174

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Item Description

Alignment Information

Mill Creek Canyon Road is in, and maintained by, Salt Lake County. It provides access to the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest System

(NFS) lands from 3800 South Wasatch Boulevard. The project limits extend from the Winter Gate (near Maple Grove picnic area), approximately 4 miles up canyon from the Mill Creek Canyon fee booth, to the end of the roadway at Big Water Trailhead, approximately 8.5 miles from the fee booth.

See Site Location

Existing Improvements

Two-lane asphaltic concrete road with minimal paved or gravel shoulder traveling through the relatively narrow canyon located within the National

Forest. Multiple bridge, culvert and pipe crossings are located along the length of the alignment for crossing over Mill Creek and other streams that flow from the surrounding canyon drainages.

There are several trailheads with associated parking lots (gravel and asphalt covered) and restroom facilities along the corridor alignment.

Seasonal private residences are located approximately 2.7 miles up canyon from the Winter Gate.

Current Ground Cover

Asphaltic concrete pavement

Canyon slope vegetation ranges from brush and grass to heavily wooded.

Existing Topography

(from Mt. Aire, Utah

Topographical maps, 1998)

Beginning at the Winter Gate, the roadway climbs from an elevation of approximately 6,080 feet to 7,640 feet over a distance of 4.5 miles, resulting in an average gradient of 6.5 percent. Grades approach 10 percent on some short stretches of the alignment. The surrounding canyon side slopes range from 25 to 90 percent.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Information Provided

Scope of Work (SOW), Mill Creek Canyon Road, UT FLAP SLA 10(1), Mod P00002, dated August 11, 2021.

Mill Creek Canyon Transportation Feasibility Study, August 2012

Salt Lake County 2022 Traffic Counts

Project Description

Reconstruct and widen approximately 4.5 miles of the roadway from the Winter Gate to the Big Water Trailhead to improve safety and enhance users’ access to NFS land while preserving natural resources. This section of roadway is closed to vehicular traffic from November 1st to late spring.

Design Pavement New pavements will be constructed consisting of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) over Untreated Base Course (UBC).

Structures Structures are not part of the scope of this report but will be addressed in the project’s geotechnical report.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Grading/Slopes

Roadway horizontal and vertical alignments have not been determined.

Cuts and fills are anticipated as the new alignment may not match the existing roadway.

Slope angles of 2H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) are expected. Retaining structures for either fills or cuts will be used where necessary and are not a part of the scope of this report.

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Pavement section thickness and subsurface conditions were explored at each exploration location and are summarized in the table below and presented on the individual exploration logs. The individual logs can be found in the Exploration Results section of this report.

Exploration

Existing

HMA

(inches)

Existing Base

Course

(inches)

Subgrade Classification

PB-01 3.25 4 Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)

PB-02 6 0

Fill – Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)

PB-03 4.5 6 Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)

PB-04 4.75 0

Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)

PB-05 4.5 0

Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC)

PB-06 4.5 1 Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC-SM)

PB-07 4.75 12 Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP)

PB-07-TS 1.5

Fill – Silty Gravel with Sand (GM)

PB-08 4 0

Fill – Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC)

PB-09 3.75 0

Fill – Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC)

PB-10 4 0

Fill – Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC-SM)

1. Based on visual observation in the boring.

2. Based on laboratory testing of selected samples where available, otherwise based on visual classification.

3. No discernable Base Course observed.

4. Intact asphalt at surface. Lower remaining asphalt was friable and mixed into the fill.

Asphalt pavement section thickness at PB-07-TS is based on the top portion of the roadway, likely an overlay. The underlying asphalt was friable and mixed into the granular fill located below the asphalt section.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

Review of the cores indicates the roadway has been overlaid in the past with the total overlay thickness ranging from 1 to 2.5 inches. In borings BP-01 through BP-04, a stone matrix asphalt

(SMA) surface layer was observed to be between 0.25 to 0.5 inches thick.

Existing base course was difficult to distinguish from the underlying subgrade soils in many of the borings. Existing subbase was not observed.

Subgrade soils encountered appeared to consist of both fill and native granular soils classified as silty or clayey sand with varying amounts of gravel and gravel with varying amounts of silt and clay. Fines content in the sands and gravels ranged from 12 to 46 percent, with most of the laboratory tests indicating 30 to 35 percent fines with low plasticity.

The subgrade soils are highly frost susceptible based on their classification and the EM 110-3-

138 Pavement Criteria for Seasonal Frost Conditions – Mobilization Construction approach.

Treatments for frost susceptible soils generally involves removal and replacement to full or partial depths below the expected frost penetration, constructing higher pavement layer structure to account for loss of bearing during spring thawing and providing pavement drainage in base layers.

An alternative pavement section offering partial protection from frost is included in this report.

Pavement Subgrade Support

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were completed for three of the sampled subgrade soils.

Three tests were run at the target percent compaction of 90, 95 and 100 percent of the maximum dry density. Test results are summarized below and are included in the Exploration Results section of this report.

Exploration

USCS/

AASHTO

Classification

Gravel/Sand

/Fines

(percent)

Liquid Limit/

Plasticity

Index

(percent)

Percent Compaction of Maximum Dry

Density

(percent)

CBR

(percent)

PB-01A at 0 ft SM / A-2-4 32 / 36 / 32 32 / 6

91 3.3

96 11.2

101 10.1

PB-07 at 0.5 ft GP-GM / A-1-a 70 / 18 / 12 18 / 3

92 31.7

95 38.4

101 64

PB-09 at 0.5 ft SC-SM / A-2-4 30 / 40 / 30 27 / 6

90 2.8

96 6.7

98 13.7

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

Pavement Condition Assessment

A pavement condition assessment was completed at the proposed exploration locations using the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system for asphalt roads. Survey results are included in the Exploration Results section of this report and are summarized below.

◼ PB-01 to PB-07: Rated as being in good condition (rating 6 to 7) with some signs of distress consisting of some longitudinal cracking, first signs of block cracking, slight polishing and flushing or raveling of the road surface.

◼ PB-08 to PB-10: Rated as fair (rating 4 to 5) with significant signs of distress visible and the first signs of need for structural repair including longitudinal, transverse, block and some alligator cracking, as well as moderate rutting and depressions of the asphalt surface. Patches and potholes were observed near the PB-10 location.

Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered at 3 and 7.5 feet in borings PB-07-TS and PB-06, respectively.

Groundwater was not encountered within the depth explored in the other borings. Visual observations of sampled soils indicate the subgrade soils ranged from moist to wet. These observations represent groundwater and subgrade moisture conditions at the time of the field exploration and may not be indicative of other times or at other locations.

Laboratory moisture content test results ranged from 4.6 to 27.6 percent.

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall and snowpack, runoff, creek water level, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the pavement may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when selecting the design pavement section.

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

Based on the results of our exploration, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed pavement reconstruction provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed.

The near surface soils could become unstable with typical earthwork and construction traffic, especially when wet. Effective surface drainage should be provided during construction and maintained after construction to avoid potential issues. If possible, the grading should be performed during the warmer and drier times of the year. If grading is performed during the times of precipitation, an increased risk for possible undercutting and replacement of unstable subgrade

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6 will persist. Additional site preparation recommendations, including subgrade improvement and fill placement, are provided in the Earthwork section.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

Earthwork activities, including site preparation, fill material types, compaction requirements, grading and drainage, should be completed in accordance with the Standard Specifications for

Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-14), Section 204. The following presents general recommendations for site subgrade preparation and placement of fill considering these guidelines.

Subgrade evaluations should be performed under the direction of Terracon.

Site Preparation

Follow FP-14 Section, 204.09.

We recommend that the geotechnical engineer should be retained to observe the pavement subgrade soils. Soft, deflecting or otherwise disturbed subgrade should be removed and replaced with embankment material as indicated in FP-14 Section 204. If pumping or unstable conditions persist then the use of Stabilization Fill (crushed angular rock or recycled crushed concrete) in combination with a geotextile may be necessary. Placement of geosynthetic fabrics should follow

Section 207 of FP-14.

Fill Material Types

Materials used for engineered fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Fill Type 1 Application Requirements

Roadway

Excavation /

Borrow

Excavation

Fill used as pavement subgrade FP-14 Section 704.06

Stabilization Fill

Fill used to stabilize loose, saturated subgrade

4-inch Max

Less than 5 percent passing No. 200 Sieve

Angular

1. All fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

Fill Compaction Requirements

Compact each layer of fill according to specifications in FP-14, Section 204.11.

Grading and Drainage

The near surface soils could become unstable with typical earthwork and construction traffic, especially when wet. Effective surface drainage should be provided during construction and maintained after construction to avoid potential issues. If possible, the grading should be performed during the warmer and drier times of the year. If grading is performed during the times of precipitation, an increased risk for possible undercutting and replacement of unstable subgrade will persist.

Saturated soils should be removed prior to placing fill, pavement section materials or proceeding with construction.

Pavement subgrade surface should be sloped appropriately to the outside edges to facilitate drainage of water from below the pavement section. Ditches or other drainage features should be constructed adjacent to the roadway on each side to prevent surface water runoff from migrating below pavements. Pavement surface should have adequate crown or cross slope to allow water to rapidly run off to adjacent drainage features.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

Upon completion of grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture content prior to construction of pavements. Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. If the subgrade should become frozen, desiccated, saturated or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to construction.

As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices and in accordance with any applicable local and/or state regulations.

Construction site safety is the responsibility of the contractor who controls the means, methods and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied nor inferred.

Construction Observation and Testing

We recommend that earthwork efforts should be monitored under the direction of the

Geotechnical Engineer. Monitoring should include documentation of clearing and grubbing, Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8 subgrade preparation, embankment material placement and compaction, pavement subgrade preparation and mitigation of soft areas delineated to require subgrade stabilization.

If unanticipated subgrade conditions are encountered, the Geotechnical Engineer should assist in developing mitigation options.

In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer’s involvement into the construction phase of the project provides the continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface conditions, including assessing variations and associated design changes.

PAVEMENTS

Pavement designs are provided for the traffic conditions and pavement life conditions as noted in

Project Description and in the following sections of this report. A critical aspect of pavement performance is site preparation. Pavement designs noted in this section must be applied to the site which has been prepared as recommended in the Earthwork section.

Pavement sections have not been designed to support construction equipment. As such, the contractor should protect pavement areas from damage that may result from construction traffic.

Traffic Loading

Pavement section thickness design is based on the following traffic loading data in the table below.

Item Description

Vehicles Per Day 631

Access Upper canyon open to traffic 4 months of the year

FHWA Vehicle Truck Factors and Assumed

Percent of Traffic

Class 2 (0.00007) – 49.8 percent

Class 3 (0.004) – 49.8 percent

Class 6 (1.5) – 0.4 percent

Pavement Design Life (years) 25

Assumed Growth Rate (percent) 1.4

Calculated Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) 12,469

(PDDM Minimum - 50,000)

1. Traffic count data provided by Salt Lake County from readings taken on 7/12/2022 and

7/26/2022.

2. PDDM Section 11.2.1.2 prescribes this value for full pavement reconstruction projects.

3. Utah Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) 2019 Application, Traffic Volumes Section.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

If the proposed traffic volumes are determined to be greater or vary significantly from those described above, Terracon should be notified immediately so the necessary modifications can be made to our recommendations.

Pavement Design Parameters

Item Description

Serviceability Initial serviceability index: 4.2

Terminal serviceability index: 2.5

Modifying Structural Layer

Coefficient (mi)

1.0 for base materials

Reliability 75 percent

Standard Deviation 0.49

Structural Layer Coefficients

Layer Type Layer Coefficient

Asphalt Concrete (401) 0.40

Crushed Aggregate Base (301) 0.12

FDR Pulverizing (304) 0.10

FDR Cement (305) 0.15

Subgrade CBR for Design (percent) 6.0

Subgrade Resilient Modulus for

Design (psi) 8,000

1. Layer Coefficients selected from PDDM Exhibit 11.2-C and FP-14 for the bid items noted.

Pavement Section Thicknesses

Terracon has prepared three alternative recommended minimum pavement section thicknesses, and they are summarized below.

Minimum Recommended Pavement Section Thickness (inches)

Roadway

Alternatives for

50,000 ESAL’s

Item 401

Asphalt

Concrete

(inches)

Item 301

Crushed

Aggregate

Base

(inches)

Item 304

FDR

Pulverizing

(inches)

Item 305

FDR Cement

(inches)

Total

(inches)

Pavement

Replacement

3.0 6.0 -- -- 9.0

FDR

– Pulverizing 3.5 -- 6.0 -- 9.5

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10

Minimum Recommended Pavement Section Thickness (inches)

Roadway

Alternatives for

50,000 ESAL’s

Item 401

Asphalt

Concrete

(inches)

Item 301

Crushed

Aggregate

Base

(inches)

Item 304

FDR

Pulverizing

(inches)

Item 305

FDR Cement

(inches)

Total

(inches)

FDR

1, 2

– Cement 3.0 6.0 -- 6.0 15.0

1. FDR methods will require approximately 2 inches of pulverization into the existing subgrade.

This alternative has risk if oversized rock particles > 1 ½ inches are encountered during construction. Further investigation of the amount of oversized rock may be required before implementing this alternative.

2. This pavement section can offer additional frost protection with an aggregate base that is modified to provide drainage.

Other alternative pavement sections may be considered including recycling existing asphaltic concrete pavement where proposed alignment and grade follows the existing roadway. We are available to discuss options if requested.

Asphalt Concrete Pavement used on this project should be an Item 401 gyratory mix placed in two lifts as requested by CFL and constructed in accordance with Section 401 of the Standard

Specifications in FP-14. An asphalt aggregate gradation should be utilized in accordance with

FP-14 Section 703 considering the maximum nominal aggregate size and the asphalt lift thickness. Compaction and asphalt temperature requirements should also be considered during the asphalt mix design.

Terracon completed a binder determination using the Long-Term Pavement Performance Bind

(LTTP Bind version 3.1) software. Two sets of weather station data were utilized to reflect the temperature difference along the roadway alignment: one at approximately 6,000 feet, similar to conditions near the winter gate, and the other at approximately 7,000 feet, similar to conditions near Big Water Trail Head. Our analysis shows a PG 58-28 binder is appropriate for the lower elevation and PG 52-28 for the higher elevation. We recommend a PG 58-28 asphalt cement binder for use on this project since it is appropriate for temperature conditions at both the lower and higher elevations.

Crushed Aggregate Base and FDR materials should meet FP-14 requirements as shown above for materials and placement. Consideration should be given to modification of the Crushed

Aggregate Base specification (limit fines to less than 5 percent) to provide pavement drainage and partial protection from frost damage.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

Pavement Maintenance

The pavement sections represent minimum recommended thicknesses and, as such, periodic maintenance should be anticipated. Therefore, preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an ongoing pavement management program. Maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration and to preserve the pavement investment.

Maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g., crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g., surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the priority when implementing a pavement maintenance program. Additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of a cost-effective program. Even with periodic maintenance, some movements and related cracking may still occur and repairs may be required.

Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventive maintenance, the design team should consider the following recommendations in the design and layout of pavements:

■ Final grade adjacent to paved areas should slope down from the edges at a minimum 2 percent.

■ Subgrade and pavement surfaces should have a minimum 2 percent slope to promote proper surface drainage.

■ Install below pavement drainage systems in surrounding areas that are anticipated to experience frequent wetting.

■ Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately.

CORROSIVITY

Chemical testing consisting of soil pH, electrical resistivity, soluble sulfates and soluble chlorides was performed on select soil samples collected in the soil borings. Test results are provided in the laboratory summary table found in the Exploration Results section and summarized below.

◼ pH – 8.13 to 8.66

◼ Electrical Resistivity – 883 to 3104 ohms-cm

◼ Sulfate – 30 to 137 mg/kg

◼ Chloride – 37 to 195 mg/kg

The following criteria for corrosive subsurface environment are specified in ACI 318-14 Section

19 based on water soluble sulfate.

ACI 318 (Water Soluble Sulfate in Soil, Percent by Weight / mg/kg):

◼ S0 – 0 to 0.10 / < 150

◼ S1 – 0.10 to 0.20 / 150 to 1,500

◼ S2 – 0.20 to 2.00 / 1,500 to 10,000

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

◼ S3 – Over 2.00 / Over 10,000

Based on our review of the soil types and laboratory test results, we anticipate a sulfate exposure class of S0 to S1 based on ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1 and ASTM Type II Portland cement will be suitable for concrete on and below grade.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather.

The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction.

Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client.

Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client and is not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Site safety and cost estimating including excavation support and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

ATTACHMENTS

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 2

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Planned Location

11 5 to 9 Existing Roadway Alignment

Boring Layout and Elevations: Terracon personnel provided the boring layout. Coordinates were obtained with a handheld GPS unit (estimated horizontal accuracy of about ±10 feet). If a more precise boring layout is desired, we recommend borings be surveyed.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with a truck-mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight hollow stem augers. Samples were obtained at 2.5-foot intervals to 5 feet below ground surface. Samples were obtained using a split-barrel sampler. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split-barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths. A 3-inch O.D. split-barrel sampling spoon with 2.5-inch I.D. ring-lined sampler was also used for sampling regularly. Ring-lined split-barrel sampling procedures are similar to standard split-spoon sampling procedure.

Bulk samples of auger cuttings were also collected. We observed and recorded groundwater levels during drilling and sampling. All borings were backfilled with auger cuttings mixed with bentonite and concrete after drilling completion. The surface was patched with asphalt patch.

The sampling depths, penetration distances and other sampling information was recorded on the field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory for testing and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Based on the material’s texture and plasticity, we described and classified the soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the Geotechnical Engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on observations and tests of the samples in our laboratory.

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests to understand the engineering properties of the various soil strata, as necessary, for this project. Procedural standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods were applied because of local practice or professional judgment. Standards noted below

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 of 2 include reference to other, related standards. Such references are not necessarily applicable to describe the specific test performed.

■ AASHTO T 99, Method C, Standard Test Methods for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils

■ AASHTO T 265 Standard Method of Test for Laboratory Determination of Moisture

Content of Soils

■ AASHTO T 27 Standard Method of Test for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates

■ AASHTO T 193 Standard Method of Test for the California Bearing Ratio

■ Analytical tests: pH, soluble sulfate and soluble chloride

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

Contents:

Site Location Plan

Exploration Plan

Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.

M :\G

IS

\P ro je ct s\

_M ill

C re ek C an yo n\ M ap s\

_M ill

C re ek C an yo n\

_M ill C re ek

C an yo n.

ap rx terracon.com

Reviewed By:

Drawn By:

Dec 2021

Date:

61215174

Project No.:

ExhibitExploration Plan

Mill Creek Canyon Rd

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

Salt Lake County, UT

PH. (801) 545 8500

Midvale, UT 840476949 S. High Tech Dr., #100

JG

SN

DATA SOURCES:

ESRI WMS - World Topographic Map, OpenStreetMap

@A @A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A @A

@A

@A

@A

PB-01 PB-02

PB-03

PB-04

PB-05

PB-06

PB-07

PB-07-TS

PB-08

PB-09

PB-10

PB-01A

0 2,500 5,0001,250

Feet Mill Creek Canyon Road

@A Pavement Borings (PB-XX)

EXPLORATION RESULTS

Contents:

Boring Logs B-1 through B-10

Laboratory Summary Table

Grain Size Distribution

Moisture-Density Relationship & CBR Test Results

Corrosivity

Pavement Condition Assessment

7-7-7-7

4-4-5-5

3-5-5-7

15.7

13.0

ASPHALT, Approximately 3.25 inches thick

FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP),

trace silt, brown, wet SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), dark brown, moist to wet, loose

- roots

Boring Terminated at 7 Feet

0.3

0.6

7.0

0.5' - Corrosion Analysis

Hammer Type: Automatic 88% Eff.Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

M

IL

L C

R E

E K

C A

N Y

O N

1.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/2

D E

P T

H

F t.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITSLOCATION

Latitude: 40.7000° Longitude: -111.7127°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

(N 1)

Mill Creek Canyon Salt Lake County, UT

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Borings backfilled with soil cuttings, bentonite, and concrete upon completion. Surface capped with asphalt.

Notes:

Project No.: 61215174

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 3100GT

Boring Started: 10-26-2021

BORING LOG NO. PB-01

DJ&A, P.C.CLIENT:

2000 Maple Street Missoula, MT 59808

Driller: Terracon

Boring Completed: 10-26-2021

PROJECT: Mill Creek Canyon Rd.

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100 Midvale, UT

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater not encountered

A A

S H

T O

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM)

Test Pit Terminated at 0.5 Foot 0.5

32-26-6

0' to 0.5' - Proctor and CBR

A-2-4 32

Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

M

IL

L C

R E

E K

C A

N Y

O N

1.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/2

D E

P T

H

F t.)

Latitude: 40.7000° Longitude: -111.7127°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

(N 1)

Mill Creek Canyon Salt Lake County, UT

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hand Dig

Abandonment Method:

Backfilled with cuttings.

Notes:

Project No.: 61215174

Excavator: --

Test Pit Started: 10-29-2021

TEST PIT LOG NO. PB-01A

DJ&A, P.C.CLIENT:

2000 Maple Street Missoula, MT 59808

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITSLOCATION

Operator: Terracon

Test Pit Completed: 10-29-2021

PROJECT: Mill Creek Canyon Rd.

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100 Midvale, UT

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater not encountered

A A

S H

T O

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

0.5' - Corrosion Analysis

9-7-5-4

1-2-9-10

16-75/4"

14.7

25.8 33-24-9

ASPHALT, Approximately 6 inches thick

FILL - SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown, moist to wet

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), reddish brown to brown, moist to wet, loose

- roots

- very dense, difficult drilling, possible boulders

Auger Refusal at 5.3 Feet

0.5

2.5

5.3

A-4 46

Hammer Type: Automatic 88% Eff.Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

M

IL

L C

R E

E K

C A

N Y

O N

1.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/2

D E

P T

H

F t.)

Mill Creek Canyon Salt Lake County, UT

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Borings backfilled with soil cuttings, bentonite, and concrete upon completion. Surface capped with asphalt.

Notes:

Project No.: 61215174

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 3100GT

Boring Started: 10-26-2021

BORING LOG NO. PB-02

DJ&A, P.C.CLIENT:

2000 Maple Street Missoula, MT 59808

Driller: Terracon

Boring Completed: 10-26-2021

PROJECT: Mill Creek Canyon Rd.

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100 Midvale, UT

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITSLOCATION

Latitude: 40.6995° Longitude: -111.7050°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

(N 1)

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater not encountered

A A

S H

T O

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

32-40-15-10

7-5-5-6

15-8-11-12

5.4

19.7

ASPHALT, Approximately 4.5 inches thick

FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP),

gray, moist

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), reddish brown, moist, loose to dense

CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), reddish brown, moist to wet, medium dense, roots

Boring Terminated at 7 Feet

0.4

1.0

4.8

7.0

Hammer Type: Automatic 88% Eff.Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

M

IL

L C

R E

E K

C A

N Y

O N

1.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/2

D E

P T

H

F t.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITSLOCATION

Latitude: 40.7027° Longitude: -111.6966°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

(N 1)

Mill Creek Canyon Salt Lake County, UT

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Borings backfilled with soil cuttings, bentonite, and concrete upon completion. Surface capped with asphalt.

Notes:

Project No.: 61215174

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 3100GT

Boring Started: 10-26-2021

BORING LOG NO. PB-03

DJ&A, P.C.CLIENT:

2000 Maple Street Missoula, MT 59808

Driller: Terracon

Boring Completed: 10-26-2021

PROJECT: Mill Creek Canyon Rd.

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100 Midvale, UT

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater not encountered

A A

S H

T O

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

5-6-4

4-4-4

4-4-4

27.6 35-26-9

ASPHALT, Approximately 4.75 inches thick

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown, wet, loose

- color change to reddish brown

Boring Terminated at 6.5 Feet

0.4

6.5

A-4 36

Hammer Type: Automatic 88% Eff.Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

M

IL

L C

R E

E K

C A

N Y

O N

1.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/2

D E

P T

H

F t.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITSLOCATION

Latitude: 40.7066° Longitude: -111.6899°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

(N 1)

Mill Creek Canyon Salt Lake County, UT

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Borings backfilled with soil cuttings, bentonite, and concrete upon completion. Surface capped with asphalt.

Notes:

Project No.: 61215174

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 3100GT

Boring Started: 10-25-2021

BORING LOG NO. PB-04

DJ&A, P.C.CLIENT:

2000 Maple Street Missoula, MT 59808

Driller: Terracon

Boring Completed: 10-25-2021

PROJECT: Mill Creek Canyon Rd.

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100 Midvale, UT

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater not encountered

A A

S H

T O

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

4-5-5

1-2-3

1-2-4

27.3

25.2

ASPHALT, Approximately 4.5 inches thick

CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), brown to black, moist to wet, very loose to loose

Boring Terminated at 6.5 Feet

0.4

6.5

0.5' - Corrosion Analysis

Hammer Type: Automatic 88% Eff.Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

M

IL

L C

R E

E K

C A

N Y

O N

1.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/2

D E

P T

H

F t.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITSLOCATION

Latitude: 40.7005° Longitude: -111.6867°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

(N 1)

Mill Creek Canyon Salt Lake County, UT

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Borings backfilled with soil cuttings, bentonite, and concrete upon completion. Surface capped with asphalt.

Notes:

Project No.: 61215174

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 3100GT

Boring Started: 10-25-2021

BORING LOG NO. PB-05

DJ&A, P.C.CLIENT:

2000 Maple Street Missoula, MT 59808

Driller: Terracon

Boring Completed: 10-25-2021

PROJECT: Mill Creek Canyon Rd.

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100 Midvale, UT

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater not encountered

A A

S H

T O

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

6-4-12

5-13-9

2-4-5

6-8-9

17.9 26-19-7

ASPHALT, Approximately 4.5 inches thick

FILL - CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), brown, moist

SILTY CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC-SM),

reddish brown, wet, loose

CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), reddish brown, wet, medium dense

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP),

brown, wet, loose

Boring Terminated at 9 Feet

0.4 0.5

2.8

5.8

9.0

A-2-4 31

Hammer Type: Automatic 88% Eff.Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

M

IL

L C

R E

E K

C A

N Y

O N

1.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/2

D E

P T

H

F t.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITSLOCATION

Latitude: 40.6975° Longitude: -111.6783°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

(N 1)

Mill Creek Canyon Salt Lake County, UT

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Borings backfilled with soil cuttings, bentonite, and concrete upon completion. Surface capped with asphalt.

Notes:

Project No.: 61215174

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 3100GT

Boring Started: 10-25-2021

BORING LOG NO. PB-06

DJ&A, P.C.CLIENT:

2000 Maple Street Missoula, MT 59808

Driller: Terracon

Boring Completed: 10-25-2021

PROJECT: Mill Creek Canyon Rd.

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100 Midvale, UT

7.5' While sampling

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

A A

S H

T O

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

13-28-29

15-22-25

17-17-17

7.7

4.6

18-15-3

ASPHALT, Approximately 4.75 inches thick

FILL - CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), dark brown, moist to wet

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP), gray, moist to wet

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND

(GP-GM), grayish brown, moist, medium dense

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP), trace silt, grayish brown, moist, medium dense

Boring Terminated at 6.5 Feet

0.4

1.4

2.8

4.5

6.5

0.5' - Corrosoin Analysis 0.5' to 5' - Proctor and CBR

A-1-a 12

Hammer Type: Automatic 88% Eff.Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

M

IL

L C

R E

E K

C A

N Y

O N

1.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/2

D E

P T

H

F t.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITSLOCATION

Latitude: 40.6929° Longitude: -111.6705°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

(N 1)

Mill Creek Canyon Salt Lake County, UT

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Borings backfilled with soil cuttings, bentonite, and concrete upon completion. Surface capped with asphalt.

Notes:

Project No.: 61215174

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 3100GT

Boring Started: 10-25-2021

BORING LOG NO. PB-07

DJ&A, P.C.CLIENT:

2000 Maple Street Missoula, MT 59808

Driller: Terracon

Boring Completed: 10-25-2021

PROJECT: Mill Creek Canyon Rd.

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100 Midvale, UT

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater not encountered

A A

S H

T O

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

12-33-12

8-12-11

14-28-28

18.4

7.6

31-26-5

ASPHALT, Approximately 1.5 inches thick. Friable asphalt below.

FILL - SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM), dark brown, wet, clay lenses, organic odor

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND

(GP-GC), dark brown to black, wet, medium dense, organic odor

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND

(GP-GM), brown, wet, medium dense

Boring Terminated at 6.5 Feet

0.1

2.8

4.5

6.5

A-1-a 13

Hammer Type: Automatic 88% Eff.Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

M

IL

L C

R E

E K

C A

N Y

O N

1.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/2

D E

P T

H

F t.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITSLOCATION

Latitude: 40.6904° Longitude: -111.6677°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

(N 1)

Mill Creek Canyon Salt Lake County, UT

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Borings backfilled with soil cuttings, bentonite, and concrete upon completion. Surface capped with asphalt.

Notes:

Project No.: 61215174

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 3100GT

Boring Started: 10-25-2021

BORING LOG NO. PB-07-TS

DJ&A, P.C.CLIENT:

2000 Maple Street Missoula, MT 59808

Driller: Terracon

Boring Completed: 10-25-2021

PROJECT: Mill Creek Canyon Rd.

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100 Midvale, UT

3' While sampling

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

A A

S H

T O

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

17-14-20

25-30-45

30-60-50

14.8

4.8

ASPHALT, Approximately 4 inches thick

FILL - CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), dark brown, wet

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP), brown and gray, moist, dense, lensed

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND

(GP-GM), brown, very dense

Boring Terminated at 6.5 Feet

0.3

2.3

4.5

6.5

Hammer Type: Automatic 88% Eff.Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

M

IL

L C

R E

E K

C A

N Y

O N

1.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/2

D E

P T

H

F t.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITSLOCATION

Latitude: 40.6892° Longitude: -111.6649°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

(N 1)

Mill Creek Canyon Salt Lake County, UT

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Borings backfilled with soil cuttings, bentonite, and concrete upon completion. Surface capped with asphalt.

Notes:

Project No.: 61215174

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 3100GT

Boring Started: 10-25-2021

BORING LOG NO. PB-08

DJ&A, P.C.CLIENT:

2000 Maple Street Missoula, MT 59808

Driller: Terracon

Boring Completed: 10-25-2021

PROJECT: Mill Creek Canyon Rd.

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100 Midvale, UT

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater not encountered

A A

S H

T O

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

8-9-7

6-8-9

20-75/4"

25.0

14.3

27-21-6

ASPHALT, Approximately 3.75 inches thick

FILL - CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), dark brown, moist to wet

SILTY CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC-SM),

reddish brown, loose very dense

Boring Terminated at 5.83 Feet

0.3

2.3

5.8

0.5' to 5' - Proctor, CBR 2.5' - Corrosion Analysis

A-2-4 31

Hammer Type: Automatic 88% Eff.Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

M

IL

L C

R E

E K

C A

N Y

O N

1.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/2

D E

P T

H

F t.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITSLOCATION

Latitude: 40.6885° Longitude: -111.6556°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

(N 1)

Mill Creek Canyon Salt Lake County, UT

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Borings backfilled with soil cuttings, bentonite, and concrete upon completion. Surface capped with asphalt.

Notes:

Project No.: 61215174

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 3100GT

Boring Started: 10-25-2021

BORING LOG NO. PB-09

DJ&A, P.C.CLIENT:

2000 Maple Street Missoula, MT 59808

Driller: Terracon

Boring Completed: 10-25-2021

PROJECT: Mill Creek Canyon Rd.

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100 Midvale, UT

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater not encountered

A A

S H

T O

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

5-3-8

5-7-29

60-30-30

19.8 24-19-5

ASPHALT, Approximately 4 inches thick

FILL - SILTY CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC-SM),

dark brown, wet

CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), reddish brown, moist to wet, medium dense to dense

Auger Refusal at 5.5 Feet

0.3

2.3

5.5

0.5' - Corrosion Analysis

A-4 37

Hammer Type: Automatic 88% Eff.Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

M

IL

L C

R E

E K

C A

N Y

O N

1.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/2

D E

P T

H

F t.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITSLOCATION

Latitude: 40.6846° Longitude: -111.6485°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

(N 1)

Mill Creek Canyon Salt Lake County, UT

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Borings backfilled with soil cuttings, bentonite, and concrete upon completion. Surface capped with asphalt.

Notes:

Project No.: 61215174

Drill Rig: Geoprobe 3100GT

Boring Started: 10-25-2021

BORING LOG NO. PB-10

DJ&A, P.C.CLIENT:

2000 Maple Street Missoula, MT 59808

Driller: Terracon

Boring Completed: 10-25-2021

PROJECT: Mill Creek Canyon Rd.

UT FLAP SLA 10(1)

6949 S High Tech Dr Ste 100 Midvale, UT

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater not encountered

A A

S H

T O

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

PB-01 0.5-2.5 15.7 8.55 883 137 195

PB-01 2.5-4.5 13.0

PB-01A 0-0.5 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL(SM) / A-2-4

(0) 32 6 31.8 36.0 32.2 Proctor & CBR

PB-02 0.5-2.5 14.7 8.13 1455 129 42

PB-02 0.5001-4 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL(SM) / A-4 (2) 25.8 33 9 20.5 33.5 46.0

PB-03 0.5-2.5 5.4

PB-03 2.5-4.5 19.7

PB-04 0.5-2 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL(SM) / A-4 (0) 27.6 35 9 27.9 36.2 35.8

PB-05 0.5-2 27.3 8.15 960 30 37

PB-05 2.5-4 25.2

PB-06 0.5-2 SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with

GRAVEL(SC-SM) / A-2-4 (0) 17.9 26 7 31.3 37.7 30.9

PB-07 0.5-2 7.7 8.44 2813 55 42

PB-07 0.5001-5 POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND(GP-GM) / A-1-a (0) 18 3 70.1 18.2 11.7 Proctor & CBR

PB-07 2.5-4 4.6

PB-07-TS 0.5-2 SILTY GRAVEL with SAND(GM) / A-1-a

(0) 18.4 31 5 65.3 22.1 12.6

PB-07-TS 2.5-4 7.6

PB-08 0.5-2 14.8

PB-08 2.5-4 4.8

PB-09 0.5-2 25.0

PB-09 0.5001-5 SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC-SM) / A-2-4 (0) 27…