SOW South Fork Foundation Stabilization.pdf

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Forest Service

Statement of Work

South Fork Foundation Stabilization

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

April 30, 2025

Contents Project General Information

1.0 Scope of Work

2.0 Background

Contractor Requirements

3.0 Technical Requirements / Tasks

4.0 Government Furnished

5.0 Deliverables / Schedule

6.0 Contractor’s Key Personnel

7.0 Appendix

7.1 Structural Engineering Report

7.2 Geotechnical Engineering Report

7.3 Approximate Location of Onsite Utilities

Project South Fork Foundation Stabilization

General Information

1.0 Scope of Work

The South Fork quarters in American Fork Canyon is a historic building that is showing signs of rapid settlement and cracking (See pictures in structural engineering report). The purpose of this contract is to stabilize the foundation of the building using helical piers, as well as fill in the vertical cracks that are in the basement walls of the building. The intent of the helical piers is not to lift the foundation to match the state before the settlement, but they are to stabilize the building to prevent more settlement.

2.0 Background

A developed tract in American Fork Canyon has served as an important facility for the Forest Service, first as headquarters of the Wasatch NF’s American Fork Ranger District and now as a work center for the Pleasant Grove Ranger District. The South Fork Ranger Station had a cabin since 1907 that has since evolved in size and appearance. The 1933 establishment of Deer Creek Camp F-5 in American Fork Canyon brought CCC labor and funds for many improvement projects in the area. The Forest Service’s Regional Office prepared for one of the camp’s first projects—redevelopment of the South Fork Ranger Station. George L. Nichols, the regional architect, sketched a site improvement plan recommending construction of a new house, amongst other buildings. This new house is the South Fork Dwelling. Through recent additions to the building, poor site drainage, and poor soils, the building has begun to show signs of rapid differential settlement that will require the use of helical piers to mitigate. The helical piers can be installed from the inside or the outside of the building.

The forest service recommends installing from the inside of the building due to unknown utilities on site. The contractor shall be responsible for hiring a utility locating company to confirm the location and nature of these utilities, and it is ultimately up to the contractor to decide if they would prefer to install the piers from the inside or outside.

Contractor Requirements

3.0 Technical Requirements / Tasks

• The contractor shall be familiar with helical pier installation.

• It is the contractor’s responsibility to ascertain the nature of the utilities on site around the building. The Forest

Service recommends hiring a private utility locating company to find utilities.

• Contractor shall read through the geotechnical report and structural engineering report (Appendix A) to familiarize themselves with on-site conditions.

• There are Forest Service employees that live in this building year-round. Prior to starting work, it is the contractor’s responsibility to work with the Contracting Officers Representative (COR) to develop a schedule, so the employees are aware of work that will be taking place.

• Work may be conducted during the hours of 8am to 4pm Monday - Friday.

4.0 Government Furnished

The contractor will require access to a government owned facility. The COR will provide the contractor with a key to access the facility.

5.0 Deliverables / Schedule

• Start Date: July 1, 2025

• Schedule: 60 days from notice to proceed

• Deliverables: The contractor shall be responsible for submitting helical pier torque reports stating that each pier has met the specified torque or has hit refusal.

6.0 Contractor’s Key Personnel

The contractor is responsible to ensure that the helical piers are properly installed, and the work has been conducted in accordance with the drawings and specifications. Please see the attached past performance technical form to demonstrate successful performance with similar projects.

7.0 Appendix

South Fork Dwelling Evaluation Report December 8, 2023

Background

The South Fork Dwelling is a USFS housing building located at the South Fork Ranger Station located in

American Fork Canyon in Utah County, Utah. The dwelling has experienced foundation distress and settlement which has impacted the dwelling structure. An evaluation was commissioned to determine the cause, severity, and potential solutions. CLH Architects and Engineers was retained to complete the evaluation and provide recommendations. ARW Engineers is providing structural engineering services and GSH Geotechnical is providing geotechnical/soils engineering services.

Evaluation

Members of the consulting team met with USFS representatives at the South Fork Ranger Station on

September 22, 2023, to visually review the current condition of the dwelling. After a walkthrough of the building, it was determined that the first task would be to complete a geotechnical investigation to determine the potential cause of the foundation distress. GSH provided a report with recommendations to the team dated November 10, 2023.

The structural visual observation of the dwelling indicated several issues. As noted in the USFS SOW the dwelling was likely constructed in the 1930’s. As construction documents of the structure are not available. The structural system of the dwelling consists of wood/timber framing. The foundation is case-in-place concrete assumed to be minimally reinforced.

A detailed, exhaustive visual observation was not completed. Numerical calculations and analysis was not completed.

Observations

It appears that the primary foundation movement has been on the east side of the structure. This movement has caused 1) movement of structural elements relative to the foundation, and 2) cracking of the foundation.

Wood beams supporting the floor and bearing on the concrete foundation at the east end of the building indicate movement. Based on the different coats of paint it appears that movement has occurred several times throughout the life of the building. The amount movement does not appear to have created a serious structural concern at this point, however future movement should be prevented.

South Fork Dwelling Evaluation Page 2 of 7

Cracking through the entire concrete foundation thickness was noted at the northeast corner of the foundation. Other than the crack itself, significant vertical differential movement was not noted. The crack has been accentuated as the east side of the structure has settled. The cracking at this location and less severe cracks elsewhere allow moisture to migrate into the basement area.

Recommendations

ARW Engineers has reviewed the geotechnical report. Based on the report and visual observations the following recommendations are provided:

1. Stabilize the foundation with the addition of helical piers or micro piles as recommended by

GSH. Which system to use will likely depend on owner preference, availability of sub-contractors, access to the site and the desired level of structural remediation.

2. It is ARW’s opinion that that the best solution for the structure is to stabilize the foundation in place and to not attempt to jack the foundation to a pre-settlement condition. This is based on the opinion that the current condition of the structure is not unsafe and that attempting to move or adjust the structure itself may create additional concerns.

3. Provide additional support for the structural elements that have moved by adding supporting seats, etc.

4. Inject the cracks with epoxy once the foundation is stabilized to prevent moisture intrusion and avoid corrosion.

5. Direct surface moisture away from the building foundation.

Summary

The settlement of the foundation support has caused distress in the foundation system and limited movement in the structural system. The foundation should be stabilized based on recommendations provided by the geotechnical engineer. The owner should determine the degree to which the structural remediation includes attempts to move the structure into the pre-settlement conditions, however as noted ARW does not recommend this process. The additional repair/remediation recommendation should be accomplished.

Recommendations provided by ARW Engineers are based on the limited visual observation and experience with similar structures.

ARW Engineers will provide structural remediation documentation as directed by the owner.

Brent L White, SE

23333_rpt_20231208

South Fork Dwelling Evaluation Page 3 of 7

Photo 1, Dwelling looking north

Photo 2, Dwelling looking northeast

South Fork Dwelling Evaluation Page 4 of 7

Photo 3, Dwelling looking southeast

Photo 4, Foundation at north side noting settled sidewalk and foundation crack

South Fork Dwelling Evaluation Page 5 of 7

Photo 5, Foundation crack NE corner from outside

Photo 6, NE corner foundation crack from inside

South Fork Dwelling Evaluation Page 6 of 7

Photo 7, Wood beam noting foundation movement

Photo 8, Foundation crack

South Fork Dwelling Evaluation Page 7 of 7

Photo 9, Foundation crack

Photo 10, Separation of ceiling finish from foundation

REPORT

DISTRESSED STRUCTURE GEOTECHNICAL

EVALUATION

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE

SOUTH FORK RANGER STATION ROAD

PROVO, UTAH

Submitted To:

Case, Lowe & Hart, Inc.

2484 Washington Boulevard, Suite 510

Ogden, Utah 84401

Submitted By:

GSH Geotechnical, Inc.

473 West 4800 South

Salt Lake City, Utah 84123

November 10, 2023

Job No. 1019-043-23

GSH Geotechnical, Inc.

473 West 4800 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84123 Tel: 801.685.9190 Fax: 801.685.2990 www.gshgeo.com

Mr. Steve Peterson

2484 Washington Boulevard, Suite 510 Ogden, Utah 84401

Mr. Peterson:

Re: Report

Distressed Structure Geotechnical Evaluation Single-family Residential Structure South Fork Ranger Station Road Provo, Utah

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

This report presents the results of our distressed structure geotechnical evaluation performed at the site of the single-family residential structure located at South Fork Ranger Station Road in Provo, Utah. The general location of the site with respect to existing roadways, as of 2023, is presented on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. A more detailed aerial layout of the site showing existing roadways and borings drilled in conjunction with this study is presented on Figure 2, Site Plan.

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

The objectives and scope of the study were planned in discussions between Mr. Steve Peterson of Case, Lowe & Hart, Inc., and Mr. Robert Gifford of GSH Geotechnical, Inc. (GSH).

In general, the objectives of this study were to:

1. Define and evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions across the site.

2. Provide professional opinions regarding potential causes of settlement and foundation distress and recommendations for repair and mitigation of observed distress.

http://www.gshgeo.com/

Distressed Structure Geotechnical Evaluation – Single-family Residential Structure

In accomplishing these objectives, our scope has included the following:

1. A field program consisting of the drilling, logging, and sampling of 4 exploration borings.

2. A laboratory testing program.

3. An office program consisting of the correlation of available data, engineering analysis, and the preparation of this summary report.

1.3 PROFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

Supporting data upon which our recommendations are based are presented in subsequent sections of this report. Recommendations presented herein are governed by the physical properties of the soils encountered in the exploration borings, projected groundwater conditions, and the layout and design data discussed in Section 2, Existing Construction. If subsurface conditions other than those described in this report are encountered GSH must be informed so that our recommendations can be reviewed and amended, if necessary.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings developed, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices in this area at this time.

2. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION

The site is currently developed with an existing 2-story single-family residential structure constructed in 1934. GSH observed multiple cracks up to 1-inch wide within the basement walls.

Maximum wall and column loads are anticipated to be 2 to 4 kips per lineal foot, and 60 kips, respectively.

3. SITE INVESTIGATIONS

3.1 GENERAL

Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations or at other times may vary from those encountered at specific boring locations. If such variations are noted during construction or if project development plans are changed, GSH must review the changes and amend our recommendations, if necessary.

Boring locations were established by estimating distances and angles from site landmarks. If increased accuracy is desired by the client, we recommend that the boring locations and elevations be surveyed.

3.2 FIELD PROGRAM

To define and evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions across the site, 4 borings were drilled within the accessible areas. These borings were completed to depths ranging from

16.0 to 25.5 feet with a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers. Auger refusal within very dense granular soils terminated Borings B-1, B-3, and B-4. The approximate locations of the borings are presented on Figure 2.

The field portion of our study was under the direct control and continual supervision of an experienced member of our geotechnical staff. During the course of the drilling operations, a continuous log of the subsurface conditions encountered was maintained. In addition, samples of the typical soils encountered were obtained for subsequent laboratory testing and examination. The soils were classified in the field based upon visual and textural examination. These classifications were supplemented by subsequent inspection and testing in our laboratory. Graphical representation of the subsurface conditions encountered is presented on Figures 3A through 3D, Boring Logs. Soils were classified in accordance with the nomenclature described on Figure 4, Key to Boring Log (USCS).

A 3.25-inch outside diameter, 2.42-inch inside diameter drive sampler (Dames & Moore) was utilized at select locations and depths. The blow counts recorded on the boring logs were those required to drive the sampler 12 inches with a 140-pound hammer dropping 30 inches.

Following completion of excavation operations, 1.25-inch diameter slotted PVC pipe was installed in Borings B-1 through B-3 to provide a means of monitoring the groundwater fluctuations. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings.

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING

3.3.1 General

To provide data necessary for our engineering analysis, a laboratory testing program was performed. This program included moisture, density, and partial gradation tests. The following paragraphs describe the tests and summarize the test data.

3.3.2 Moisture and Density Tests

To provide index parameters and to correlate other test data, moisture and density tests were performed on selected samples. The results of these tests are presented on the boring logs, Figures 3A through 3D.

3.3.3 Partial Gradation Tests

To aid in classifying the granular soils, partial gradation tests were performed. Results of the tests are tabulated on the following page and presented on the boring logs, Figures 3A through 3D.

Boring No.

Depth (feet)

Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve

Moisture Content Percent

Soil Classification

B-1 12.5 6.8 8.4 GP/GM

B-2 5.0 8.4 7.5 GP/GM (Fill)

B-2 25.0 12.5 13.3 SM/SC

B-3 15.0 5.2 7.0 GP/GM

B-3 20.0 8.1 8.9 SP/SM

B-4 10.0 42.5 32.2 SM

B-4 15.0 9.8 8.0 SP/SM

B-4 20.0 6.3 6.8 GP/GM

4. SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 SURFACE

The site is located at South Fork Ranger Station Road in Provo, Utah. The site is currently constructed with an existing 2-story single-family residential structure constructed in 1934 with surrounding areas containing mature trees, rigid pavement sidewalks, and flexible pavement driveways. The topography of the site is relatively flat, grading down off site to the west with a total relief of approximately 12 to 14 feet. Site vegetation consists of various landscaped grass areas with mature trees around the structure.

The site is bounded to the north by American Fork River followed by State Highway 92 with vacant/undeveloped wooded land beyond; to the east ranger station structures as well as flexible pavements followed by vacant/undeveloped wooded land; to the west by vacant/undeveloped brush/grass/wooded land; and to the south by similar vacant/undeveloped wooded land.

4.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL

The following paragraphs provide generalized descriptions of the subsurface profiles and soil conditions encountered within the borings conducted during this study. As previously noted, soil conditions may vary in unexplored locations.

The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 16.0 to 25.5 feet. The soil conditions encountered in each of the borings, to the depths penetrated, were generally similar across the boring locations.

• Although not encountered in any of the borings, asphalt and/or concrete was observed on the ground surface of the existing parking lot and driveways located on the eastern portion of the site.

• Non-engineered fill soils were encountered in each boring, to depths ranging from 8.5 to

20.5 feet beneath the existing ground surface. The non-engineered fill soils contained foam debris and other deleterious material and primarily consisted of clay with varying silt, sand, and gravel content as well as gravel with varying clay, silt, and sand content.

• Natural soils were encountered below the non-engineered fill in each boring. The natural soils consisted primarily of sand and gravel with varying clay and silt content. Boring B-4 encountered a layer of natural clay at a depth ranging from 11.5 to 13.5 feet below the ground surface.

• Materials causing auger/excavation refusal were encountered within the very dense natural granular soils in Borings B-1, B-3, and B-4 at depths ranging from 16.0 to

25.5 feet below the existing ground surface.

The non-engineered fills were loose/medium stiff to very stiff, slightly moist to saturated and brown and dark brown in color. Non-engineered fills are erratic in composition and unpredictable with respect to strength and compressibility characteristics. GSH has determined that the non-engineered fills have become saturated due to the perched groundwater intruding from the steep slope to the south of the site.

The natural granular soils were loose to medium dense, moist to saturated, and gray and brown in color. The natural sand soils are anticipated to exhibit moderately high strength and moderately low compressibility characteristics under the anticipated load range.

The natural clay soils were soft to stiff, moist to saturated, brown in color, and moderately over-consolidated. The natural clay soils are anticipated to exhibit moderate strength and compressibility characteristics under the anticipated loading.

For a more descriptive interpretation of subsurface conditions, please refer to Figures 3A through 3D, Boring Logs. The lines designating the interface between soil types on the boring logs generally represent approximate boundaries. In situ, the transition between soil types may be gradual.

4.3 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered to the depths explored in the borings completed at the site when checked on November 7, 2023.

Groundwater levels vary with changes in season and rainfall, construction activity, irrigation, snow melt, surface water run-off, and other site-specific factors.

5. DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Based on the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, distress observed within the structure is likely attributed to settlement of footings when underlying non-engineered fills became saturated or nearly saturated. Non-engineered fills typically have moderate to high strength when dry but become soft with variable settlement characteristics when they become saturated or nearly saturated.

Buildings constructed before the mid-1900s, especially where site grading was needed, were sometimes placed on under-compacted or non-compacted soils. These soils may remain dry for many years and provide support for the overlying structures. When these soils become saturated by whatever source, the soils will tend to deform under the structural loads and cause cracking and distress in the overlying structure.

In the following sections, detailed discussions pertaining to earthwork, foundations, at-grade concrete slabs, subdrains, and the geoseismic setting of the site are provided.

5.2 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

GSH has determined two possible options for the repair of the proposed foundation distress. These options include underpinning the structure with helical piers or micro-piles.

5.2.1 Helical Piers

Helical pier foundations may be used to level the structure and transfer foundation loads into underlying suitable soils. Helical piers consist of small diameter steel or titanium shafts with helical lead augers and are installed by advancing (rotating) the lead helix with a hydraulically driven head. Helical piers utilized for this project should be extended through the clay and imbedded a minimum of 5.0 feet into competent granular soils.

Helical piers are a specialized foundation system and must be designed by the company chosen to complete the work.

Helical piers should be properly inspected and tested during installation by an ICC certified special inspector or geotechnical engineer. Inspections during installation should conform to the requirements of Section 1705.8 and Table 1705.8 of the International Building Code. Special inspections during construction should include, but are not limited to, observation and logging during drilling activities, verification of pier location, verification of pier plumbness, and observation of load testing. Load testing for piers to verify the installed capacity can be conducted prior to design of the structure or during installation. Piers utilized for load testing should be loaded to a minimum of twice the proposed maximum design load of the structure. Load testing can be conducted through either compression or tension testing, or as specified by the project structural engineer.

5.2.2 Micro-piles

Micro-piles may also be used to level the structure and transfer foundation loads into underlying suitable soils. Micro-piles are specialized foundation systems and must be designed by a licensed engineer experienced with these types of systems.

Pile installation should be observed by a GSH representative to assure that adequate bearing is achieved, clean out is performed, and the re-bar is properly placed.

6. CLOSURE

If you have any questions or would like to discuss these items further, please feel free to contact us at (801) 685-9190.

Respectfully submitted, GSH Geotechnical, Inc. Reviewed by:

Alan D. Spilker, P.E. Robert A. Gifford State of Utah No. 334228 Staff Engineer/Geologist President/Senior Geotechnical Engineer

ADS/RAG:jmt

Encl. Figure 1, Vicinity Map

Figure 2, Site Plan Figures 3A through 3D, Boring Logs Figure 4, Key to Boring Log (USCS)

Addressee (email)

REFERENCE:

ALL TRAILS - NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TERRAIN

DATED 2023

FIGURE 1

VICINITY MAP

CASE, LOWE & HART, INC.

JOB NO. 1019-043-23

SITE

CASE, LOWE & HART, INC.

JOB NO. 1019-043-23

REFERENCE:

ADAPTED FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

DOWNLOADED FROM GOOGLE EARTH

IMAGERY DATED 5/2023

FIGURE 2

SITE PLAN

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

BORING: B-1

PROJECT NUMBER: 1019-043-23

DATE STARTED: 10/6/23 DATE FINISHED: 10/6/23

LOCATION: South Fork Ranger Station Road, Provo, Utah GSH FIELD REP.: EC

DRILLING METHOD/EQUIPMENT: 4-1/4" ID Hollow-Stem Auger HAMMER: Automatic WEIGHT: 140 lbs DROP: 30"

GROUNDWATER DEPTH: Not Encountered (11/7/23) ELEVATION: ---

CL slightly moist FILL very stiff medium stiff very moist stiff

GP/ very moist GM/ medium dense very dense

See Subsurface Conditions section in the report for additional information. FIGURE 3A

Refusal at 16.0' on very dense granular soils.

Installed 1.25" diameter slotted PVC pipe to 16.0'.

FINE TO COARSE SANDY FINE AND COARSE GRAVEL

with some silt and trace clay; brown grades with trace sand and gravel; dark brown

BORING LOG

Page: 1 of 1 with trace fine to coarse sand and some fine and coarse gravel;

REMARKSDESCRIPTION

brown

Ground Surface

SILTY CLAY, FILL

PROJECT: Single-family Residential StructureO

CLIENT: Case, Lowe & Hart, Inc.

W

A T

E R

L E

V E

L

U S C S D

E P

T H

(F T

B L

O W

C O

U N

T

SA

M

P L

E S

Y M

B O

L

M O

IS

T

U R

E

D R

Y D

E N

SI

T

Y

P C

F

P

A

SS

IN

G

L

IQ

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P L

A

ST

IC

IT

Y I

N D

E X

50+

33.5

20.2

8.4

6.8

BORING: B-2

DATE STARTED: 10/6/23 DATE FINISHED: 10/6/23

LOCATION: South Fork Ranger Station Road, Provo, Utah GSH FIELD REP.: EC

DRILLING METHOD/EQUIPMENT: 4-1/4" ID Hollow-Stem Auger HAMMER: Automatic WEIGHT: 140 lbs DROP: 30"

GROUNDWATER DEPTH: Not Encountered (11/7/23) ELEVATION: ---

CL slightly moist FILL very stiff

GP/ slightly moist GM loose

FILL

CL moist FILL stiff very stiff stiff slightly moist

SM/ very moist SC loose medium dense

See Subsurface Conditions section in the report for additional information. FIGURE 3B

BORING LOG

Page: 1 of 2

CLIENT: Case, Lowe & Hart, Inc.

PROJECT: Single-family Residential StructureO

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Ground Surface

SILTY CLAY, FILL

with fine to medium sand and trace fine and coarse gravel;

dark brown

FINE GRAVEL, FILL

with some silt and fine to coarse sand; dark brown

FINE TO COARSE SANDY CLAY, FILL

with trace fine gravel; brown grades with layers of fine and coarse gravel with fine to coarse sand up to 2" thick and silty clay grades fine to coarse sandy clay with trace fine and coarse gravel grades with fine sand and trace fine and coarse gravel

SILTY/CLAYEY FINE TO COARSE SAND

with fine and coarse gravel and trace clay; brown

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

U S C S D

E P

T H

(F T

B L

O W

C O

U N

T

SA

M

P L

E S

Y M

B O

L

M O

IS

T

U R

E

D R

Y D

E N

SI

T

Y

P C

F

P

A

SS

IN

G

L

IQ

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P L

A

ST

IC

IT

Y I

N D

E X

17.0

7.5

30.8

15.7

13.3

8.4

12.5

BORING: B-2

DATE STARTED: 10/6/23 DATE FINISHED: 10/6/23

See Subsurface Conditions section in the report for additional information. FIGURE 3B (continued)

BORING LOG

Page: 2 of 2

CLIENT: Case, Lowe & Hart, Inc.

PROJECT: Single-family Residential StructureO

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

End of Exploration at 25.5'.

Installed 1.25" diameter slotted PVC pipe to 25.5'.

38 13.3 12.5

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

U S C S D

E P

T H

(F T

B L

O W

C O

U N

T

SA

M

P L

E S

Y M

B O

L

M O

IS

T

U R

E

D R

Y D

E N

SI

T

Y

P C

F

P

A

SS

IN

G

L

IQ

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P L

A

ST

IC

IT

Y I

N D

E X

BORING: B-3

DATE STARTED: 10/6/23 DATE FINISHED: 10/6/23

LOCATION: South Fork Ranger Station Road, Provo, Utah GSH FIELD REP.: EC

DRILLING METHOD/EQUIPMENT: 4-1/4" ID Hollow-Stem Auger HAMMER: Automatic WEIGHT: 140 lbs DROP: 30"

GROUNDWATER DEPTH: Not Encountered (10/6/23) ELEVATION: ---

CL moist FILL medium stiff very stiff

GP/ moist GM loose

SP/ slightly moist SM medium dense very dense

See Subsurface Conditions section in the report for additional information. FIGURE 3C

FINE TO COARSE SAND

with some silt, fine and coarse gravel, and trace clay; brown with some silt and fine to coarse sand; brown grades brown

FINE AND COARSE GRAVEL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Ground Surface

FINE TO COARSE SANDY CLAY, FILL

with trace fine and coarse gravel; dark brown

CLIENT: Case, Lowe & Hart, Inc.

PROJECT: Single-family Residential StructureO

BORING LOG

Page: 1 of 2

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

U S C S D

E P

T H

(F T

B L

O W

C O

U N

T

SA

M

P L

E S

Y M

B O

L

M O

IS

T

U R

E

D R

Y D

E N

SI

T

Y

P C

F

P

A

SS

IN

G

L

IQ

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P L

A

ST

IC

IT

Y I

N D

E X

50+

20.6

7.0

8.9

5.2

8.1

BORING: B-3

DATE STARTED: 10/6/23 DATE FINISHED: 10/6/23

See Subsurface Conditions section in the report for additional information. FIGURE 3C (continued)

No groundwater encountered at time of drilling.

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Refusal at 25.5' on very dense granular soils.

CLIENT: Case, Lowe & Hart, Inc.

PROJECT: Single-family Residential StructureO

BORING LOG

Page: 2 of 2

50+

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

U S C S D

E P

T H

(F T

B L

O W

C O

U N

T

SA

M

P L

E S

Y M

B O

L

M O

IS

T

U R

E

D R

Y D

E N

SI

T

Y

P C

F

P

A

SS

IN

G

L

IQ

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P L

A

ST

IC

IT

Y I

N D

BORING: B-4

DATE STARTED: 10/6/23 DATE FINISHED: 10/6/23

LOCATION: South Fork Ranger Station Road, Provo, Utah GSH FIELD REP.: EC

DRILLING METHOD/EQUIPMENT: 4-1/4" ID Hollow-Stem Auger HAMMER: Automatic WEIGHT: 140 lbs DROP: 30"

GROUNDWATER DEPTH: Not Encountered (10/6/23) ELEVATION: ---

CL slightly moist FILL very stiff

SM slightly moist loose

CL moist stiff

SP/ slightly moist SM loose

GP/ slightly moist GM medium dense very dense

See Subsurface Conditions section in the report for additional information. FIGURE 3D

BORING LOG

Page: 1 of 1

CLIENT: Case, Lowe & Hart, Inc.

PROJECT: Single-family Residential StructureO

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Ground Surface

FINE TO COARSE SANDY CLAY, FILL

with fine and coarse gravel; dark brown

SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND

with fine and coarse gravel; brown

SILTY CLAY

brown

FINE TO COARSE SAND

with some silt and trace fine gravel; brown

FINE AND COARSE GRAVEL

with some silt and fine to coarse sand; brown

Refusal at 21.0' on very dense granular soils.

No groundwater encountered at time of drilling.

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

U S C S D

E P

T H

(F T

B L

O W

C O

U N

T

SA

M

P L

E S

Y M

B O

L

M O

IS

T

U R

E

D R

Y D

E N

SI

T

Y

P C

F

P

A

SS

IN

G

L

IQ

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P L

A

ST

IC

IT

Y I

N D

E X

31.9

32.2

8.0

6.8

42.5

9.8

6.3

CLIENT: Case, Lowe & Hart, Inc.

PROJECT: Single-family Residential StructureO

PROJECT NUMBER: 1019-043-23

① ② ③ ④

CEMENTATION: MODIFIERS:

Trace

<5%

Some

5-12%

With

> 12%

USCS STRATIFICATION:

SYMBOLS

Occasional:

One or less per 6" of thickness

Numerous;

More than one per 6" of thickness

Note: Dual Symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classifications.

⑨

Inorganic Clays of High Plasticity, Fat Clays Thin Wall

OH Organic Silts and Organic Clays of Medium to High Plasticity

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

3.25" OD, 2.42" ID

D&M Sampler

OL Organic Silts and Organic Silty Clays o f Low Plasticity

3.0" OD, 2.42" ID

D&M Sampler

FIGURE 4

KEY TO BORING LOG

⑫

% Passing 200: Fines content of soils sample passing a No. 200 sieve; expressed as a percentage.

CH

(appreciable amount of fines) SC Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures Rock Core

PT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils with High Organic Contents

WATER SYMBOL

Water Level

Inorganic Clays of Low to Medium Plasticity, Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean Clays

FINE-

GRAINED

SOILS

More than 50% of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.

SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit less than 50%

ML Inorganic Silts and Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour, Silty or Clayey Fine Sands or Clayey Silts with Slight Plasticity

No Recovery

CL

SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit greater than

50%

MH Inorganic Silts, Micacious or Diatomacious Fine Sand or Silty Soils

California Sampler

SP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little or No Fines Bulk/Bag Sample

SANDS WITH

FINES SM Silty Sands, Sand-Silt Mixtures

Standard Penetration Split Spoon Sampler

(appreciable amount of fines) GC Clayey Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Clay Mixtures TYPICAL SAMPLER

SANDS

More than 50% of coarse fraction passing through No. 4 sieve.

CLEAN SANDS SW Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little or No Fines

GRAPHIC SYMBOLS

(little or no fines)

Seam up to 1/8"

Layer 1/8" to 12"

(little or no fines) GP

Poorly-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Mixtures, Little or No Fines

GRAVELS WITH

FINES GM Silty Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Silt Mixtures

Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive; field descriptions may have been modified to reflect lab test results. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.

U N

IF

IE

D S

O

IL

C L

A S

S

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N S

Y S

T E

M

U S

C S

MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS DESCRIPTION THICKNESS

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

More than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.

GRAVELS

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve.

CLEAN

GRAVELS GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Mixtures, Little or No Fines

Moist: Damp but no visible water.

⑦ Moisture (%): Water content of soil sample measured in laboratory; expressed as percentage of dryweight of Strongly: Will not crumble or break with finger pressure.

Saturated: Visible water, usually soil below water table.

⑧ Dry Density (pcf): The density of a soil measured in laboratory; expressed in pounds per cubic foot.

⑤ Blow Count: Number of blows to advance sampler 12" beyond first 6", using a 140-lb hammer with 30" drop.

MOISTURE CONTENT (FIELD TEST):

Weakly: Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure.

Dry: Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch.

⑥ Sample Symbol: Type of soil sample collected at depth interval shown; sampler symbols are explained below. Moderately: Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure.

⑪ Plasticity Index (%): Range of water content at which a soil exhibits plastic properties.

③ Description: Description of material encountered; may include color, moisture, grain size, density/consistency, ⑫ Remarks: Comments and observations regarding drilling or sampling made by driller or field personnel. May include other field and laboratory test results using the following abbreviations:

④ Depth (ft.): Depth in feet below the ground surface.

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ ⑪

COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS

① Water Level: Depth to measured groundwater table. See symbol below.

⑩ Liquid Limit (%): Water content at which a soil changes from plastic to liquid behavior.

② USCS: (Unified Soil Classification System) Description of soils encountered; typical symbols are explained below.

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

U S C S D

E P

T H

(F T

B L

O W

C O

U N

T

S A

M P

L E

S Y

M B

O L

M O

IS

T

U R

E

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y

P C

F

P

A S

S

IN

G

L

IQ

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P L

A S

T

IC

IT

Y

I N

D

C:

\A

G

IB

BS

\A

PR

O

JE

CT

S\

SO

U

TH

F O

R K

D W

EL

LI

N G

-D

EW

AT

ER

7)

\D R

AW

IN

G S\

7C

O

VE

R.

dw g, /1 0/

:0

6:

P M

, A cr oP lo t.p c3

G

IB

BS

\A

PR

O

JE

CT

S\

SO

U

TH

F O

R K

D W

EL

LI

N G

-D

EW

AT

ER

7)

\D R

AW

IN

G S\

SF

D

W

EL

LP

LA

N .d w g, /1

0/

:0 6:

P

M , A cr oP lo

G

IB

BS

\A

PR

O

JE

CT

S\

SO

U

TH

F O

R K

D W

EL

LI

N G

-D

EW

AT

ER

7)

\D R

AW

IN

G S\

SF

D

W

EL

LS

LO

PE

.d w g, /1

0/

:0 7:

P

M , A cr oP lo

6. CLOSURE