DDW-2024-009113

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................Page 1
SCOPE.......................................................Page 2
SITE CONDITIONS...............................................Page 2
FIELD STUDY...................................................Page 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.........................................Page 3
SUBSURFACE WATER............................................Page 4
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION........................................Page 5
GEOLOGY.....................................................Page 5
A.Regional Geology......................................Page 5
B.Site Geology..........................................Page 6
C.Tectonic Setting.......................................Page 6
D.Other Geologic Hazards..................................Page 6
RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................Page 7
A.Site Grading..........................................Page 7
B.Foundations.........................................Page 10
C.Concrete Slab-on-Grade.................................Page 11
D.Lateral Earth Pressures..................................Page 12
E.Seismicity, Faulting and Liquefaction........................Page 13
F.Water Soluble Sulfates..................................Page 14
G.Preconstruction Meeting.................................Page 14
LIMITATIONS..................................................Page 15
REFERENCES..................................................Page 16
FIGURES
EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS FIGURE 1
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG, LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 2
GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 3
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE I
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.The subsurface soils encountered in the borings consist of approximately
11 feet of fill in Boring B-1 and approximately 2 feet of fill overlying 1½ feet
of topsoil in Boring B-2. Silty sand with gravel was encountered below the fill
in Boring B-1 to a depth of approximately 15 feet. Gravel with likely cobbles
and boulders was encountered below the sand in Boring B-1 and below the
topsoil in Boring B-2. The material encountered at depth in the borings is
potentially bedrock. The maximum depth investigated was approximately
19 and 9 feet in Borings B-1 and B-2, respectively, at which depths the
sampler bounced and did not recover samples.
2.No subsurface water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling to
the depth investigated.
3.The proposed building may be supported on spread footings bearing on the
undisturbed natural sand, gravel, bedrock or compacted structural fill
extending down to the undisturbed natural sand, gravel or bedrock. Spread
footings may be designed using an allowable net bearing pressure
3,500 pounds per square foot.
4.Approximately 11 feet of fill was encountered in Boring B-1 and approximately
2 feet of fill overlying 1½ feet of topsoil in Boring B-2. Unsuitable fill, topsoil,
organics and other deleterious materials should be removed from below the
area of proposed building, exterior slabs and other improvements sensitive to
differential settlement.
5.Geotechnical information related to foundations, subgrade preparation and
materials is included in the report.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 2
SCOPE
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed well house
for the HITR backup well at approximately Latitude 40.6779 degrees north and
Longitude 112.2431 degrees west, east of Lake Point in Tooele County, Utah. The report
presents the subsurface conditions encountered, laboratory test results and
recommendations for foundations. The study was conducted in general accordance with our
proposal dated May 6, 2022.
We previously conducted a geotechnical study for the existing water tank and pump station
at the site and presented our findings and recommendations in a report dated
December 4, 1998 under Project No. 983725.
Field exploration was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface conditions and to
obtain samples for laboratory testing. Samples obtained during the field investigation were
tested in the laboratory to determine physical and engineering characteristics of the on-site
soil and to define conditions at the site for our engineering analysis. Results of the field
exploration and laboratory tests were analyzed to develop recommendations for the proposed
foundations.
This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during the study and to
present our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed construction and the
subsurface conditions encountered. Design parameters and a discussion of geotechnical
engineering considerations related to construction are included in the report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is situated on a relatively flat bench, north of an existing well house (see Figure 1).
There is a well that has been constructed at the site.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 3
The site has a gentle slope down to the north. The site appears to have been graded by
placing fill in the western portion of the area and there is a fill slope along the west side.
Approximately 11 feet of fill was encountered in Boring B-1, consistent with the appearance
of the fill slope. The surrounding area is a hillside that slopes gently to moderately down to
the west.
Vegetation includes grass, weeds and brush.
There is a well house and buried water tank to the south. The site is generally surrounded
by undeveloped hillside areas.
FIELD STUDY
The field study was conducted on June 13, 2022. Two borings were drilled at the
approximate locations indicated on Figure 1 using 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger. The
borings were logged and samples obtained by a geologist from AGEC. Logs of the
subsurface conditions encountered in the borings are shown on Figure 2.
The approximate locations of explorations from our previous study at the site are included
on Figure 1. The logs of these explorations and the results of laboratory tests are included
in the appendix.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface soils encountered in the borings consist of approximately 11 feet of fill in
Boring B-1 and approximately 2 feet of fill overlying 1½ feet of topsoil in Boring B-2. Silty
sand with gravel was encountered below the fill in Boring B-1 to a depth of approximately
15 feet. Gravel with likely cobbles and boulders was encountered below the sand in
Boring B-1 and below the topsoil in Boring B-2. The material encountered at depth in the
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 4
borings is potentially bedrock. The maximum depth investigated was approximately 19 and
9 feet in Borings B-1 and B-2, respectively, at which depths the sampler bounced and did
not recover samples.
A description of the various materials encountered in the borings follows:
Fill - The fill consists of silty sand with gravel to clayey gravel with sand. It is slightly
moist and brown to brownish gray.
Laboratory tests conducted on the fill indicate it has moisture contents of 7 to
8 percent and dry densities of 103 to 117 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
Topsoil - The topsoil consists of sandy lean clay with gravel. It is moist and dark
brown.
Silty Sand with Gravel - The sand contains small to moderate amounts of silt. It is
very dense, slightly moist and gray.
Laboratory tests conducted on samples of the sand indicate it has natural moisture
contents of 3 to 5 percent and natural dry densities of 117 to 121 pcf.
Poorly-graded Gravel with Silt and Sand - The gravel likely contains cobbles and
boulders and is possibly bedrock at depth. It is very dense, slightly moist and brown.
Results of the laboratory tests are summarized on Table I and are included on the logs of the
borings.
SUBSURFACE WATER
No subsurface water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling to the depth
investigated.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 5
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We understand that the building will have plan dimensions of approximately 30 by 15 feet
and will consist of a single-story, concrete or masonry structure with a slab-on-grade floor.
We have assumed wall loads of up to 3,000 pounds per lineal foot.
If the proposed construction or loads are significantly different from those described above,
we should be notified so that we can reevaluate the recommendations given.
GEOLOGY

A.Regional Geology
The site for the proposed well house is located in the Basin and Range province. The
province is made up of north/south elongated mountain blocks and valleys. The site
is located on the east side of the Tooele Valley. The valley was once occupied by a
large lake known as Lake Bonneville during the Wisconsin glaciation of the
Pleistocene epoch. The present day Great Salt Lake is a remnant of ancient Lake
Bonneville. Stillstands of Lake Bonneville formed benches along the Wasatch Front.
The highest level of Lake Bonneville is marked by a bench, the Bonneville Shoreline,
at approximate elevation 5160 to 5200 feet. The lake remained at this high level from
approximately 18 to 17 thousand years before present, until it dropped approximately
350 feet during a catastrophic flood known as the Bonneville Flood (Jarrett and
Malde, 1987). Two lower stillstands of Lake Bonneville are the Provo and Gilbert,
which formed at approximate elevations 4850 and 4250 feet, respectively (Nelson
and Personius, 1993). There is no evidence that the lake has risen above the Gilbert
stillstand during Holocene time (last 10,000 years).
The approximate elevation of the site is 4,640 feet, placing the site approximately
210 feet below the Provo shoreline.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 6
B.Site Geology
Surface deposits are mapped to consist of lacustrine and alluvial deposits overlying
bedrock of the Erda Formation (Tooker and Roberts, 1971). Tooker and
Roberts (1971) describe the bedrock to consist of limestone with shale, quartzite and
sandstone beds.
C.Tectonic Setting
The site is located along the west side of the Oquirrh Mountains with a prominent
mountain front escarpment. The prominent west-facing steep escarpment of the
Oquirrh Mountains is the result of repeated normal fault displacements that have
taken place over the last several million years. The system of normal faults that
makes up this escarpment is known collectively as the Oquirrh fault zone. Relatively
recent fault movements are evidenced by offsets in Lake Bonneville sediments and
more recent alluvial and colluvial deposits. The Oquirrh fault zone is active. The site
is located approximately 250 feet northeast of the nearest mapped surface trace of
the Oquirrh fault zone (UGS, 2022).
D.Other Geologic Hazards
The ground surface at the site slopes gently down to the northwest. Based on the
topography of the area, there is no source of rockfall, debris flow or flooding. The
ground surface is too flat and the subsurface materials are of sufficient strength
where landslide would not be a potential hazard at the site. The Elliott and Harty
(2010) landslide map shows no landslides in the area. Ground subsidence is not a
potential hazard at the site since there are no active faults near the site.
The site is located in the Intermountain Seismic Belt, which is an area of pronounced
earthquake activity extending from northwestern Montana to northern Arizona.
Seismic ground shaking is a potential hazard at the site. Seismic design parameters
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 7
relating to the 2018 International Building Code are provided in the recommendations
part of the report.
The site is located in an area mapped with a "very low" liquefaction susceptibility
(Black and others, 1999). Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the
borings and our understanding of the geologic conditions of the area, liquefaction is
not considered a hazard at the site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, laboratory test results and the proposed
construction, the following recommendations are given:
A.Site Grading
We anticipate that there will be small amounts of cut and fill for the proposed
construction. We anticipate that the building will have a finished floor level within
approximately 3 feet of the existing ground surface.
1.Subgrade Preparation
Approximately 11 feet of fill was encountered in Boring B-1 and approximately
2 feet of fill overlying 1½ feet of topsoil in Boring B-2. Unsuitable fill, topsoil,
organics and other deleterious materials should be removed from below areas
of proposed buildings, exterior slabs, pavement and other improvements
sensitive to differential settlement.
2.Excavation
We anticipate that excavation in the fill and natural soil can be accomplished
with heavy-duty excavation equipment. Excavation difficulty may be
encountered for excavations where boulders or bedrock are encountered,
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 8
particularly for confined excavations such as utility trenches. Alternative
excavation methods such as jack-hammering or light blasting may be needed
for excavations extending into the bedrock.
Temporary, unretained excavation slopes in the fill or natural soil may be
constructed at 1½ horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter.
3.Cut and Fill Slopes
Permanent, unretained cut and fill slopes may be constructed at 2 horizontal
to 1 vertical or flatter. Steeper cut slopes in bedrock may be considered on
an individual basis.

Cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion by revegetation or other
methods. Surface runoff should be directed away from cut and fill slopes.
4.Materials
Listed below are materials recommended for imported structural fill.
Fill to Support Recommendations
Footings Non-expansive granular soil
Passing No. 200 Sieve < 35%
Liquid Limit < 30%
Maximum size 4 inches
Floor Slab
(Upper 4 inches)
Sand and/or Gravel
Passing No. 200 Sieve < 5%
Maximum size 2 inches
Slab Support Non-expansive granular soil
Passing No. 200 Sieve < 50%
Liquid Limit < 30%
Maximum size 6 inches
The existing fill and natural soil may be considered for use as structural fill if
they meet the recommendations given above for imported structural fill and
if the organics, debris, oversized particles and other deleterious materials are
removed.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 9
The on-site soils may also be used as site grading fill outside of the building
area and as retaining wall or utility trench backfill if the organics, debris,
oversized particles and other deleterious materials are removed or the on-site
material may be used in landscape areas. Use of the on-site soil as fill or
backfill may require moisture conditioning (wetting or drying) to facilitate
compaction. Drying of the soil may not be practical in cold or wet times of
the year.
5.Compaction
Compaction of materials placed at the site should equal or exceed the
minimum densities as indicated below when compared to the maximum dry
density as determined by ASTM D 1557.
Fill To Support Compaction
Foundations $ 95%
Concrete Flatwork $ 90%
Pavement
Base Course
Fill Placed Below Base Course
$ 95%
$ 90%
Landscaping $ 85%
Retaining Wall Backfill 85 - 90%
To facilitate the compaction process, the fill should be compacted at a
moisture content within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content.
Fill materials placed for the project should be frequently tested for compaction.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 10
6.Drainage
The ground surface surrounding the building should be sloped away from the
building in all directions. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge
beyond the limits of backfill.
B.Foundations
1.Bearing Material
The proposed building may be supported on spread footings bearing on the
undisturbed natural sand, gravel, bedrock or on compacted structural fill
extending down to the undisturbed natural sand, gravel or bedrock. Structural
fill should extend out away from the edge of footings at least a distance equal
to the depth of fill placed beneath footings.
Unsuitable fill, topsoil, organics and other deleterious materials should be
removed from below proposed foundation areas.
2.Bearing Pressure
Spread footings bearing on the undisturbed natural sand and gravel, bedrock
or on compacted structural fill extending down to the undisturbed natural
sand, gravel or bedrock may be designed using an allowable net bearing
pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot. Footings should have a minimum
width of 1½ feet and a minimum depth of embedment of 1 foot.
3.Settlement
We estimate that total and differential settlement will be less than ½ inch for
footings designed as indicated above.
4.Temporary Loading Conditions
The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-half for temporary
loading conditions such as wind and seismic loads.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 11
5.Frost Depth
Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be placed at
least 30 inches below grade for frost protection.
6.Foundation Base
The base of foundation excavations should be cleared of loose or deleterious
material prior to structural fill or concrete placement.
7.Construction Observation
A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe footing
excavations prior to structural fill or concrete placement.
C.Concrete Slab-on-Grade
1.Slab Support
Concrete slabs may be supported on the undisturbed natural sand, gravel,
bedrock or on compacted structural fill extending down to the undisturbed
natural sand, gravel or bedrock.
Unsuitable fill, topsoil, organics and other deleterious materials should be
removed from below proposed floor slabs.
2.Underslab Sand and/or Gravel
A 4-inch layer of free-draining sand and/or gravel (less than 5 percent passing
the No. 200 sieve) should be placed below the floor slab for ease of
construction and to promote even curing of the slab concrete.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 12
D.Lateral Earth Pressures
1.Lateral Resistance for Footings
Lateral resistance for footings placed on the on-site materials or on compacted
structural fill is controlled by sliding resistance between the footing and the
foundation material. A friction value of 0.45 may be used in design for
ultimate lateral resistance.
2.Subgrade Walls and Retaining Structures
The following equivalent fluid weights are given for design of subgrade walls
and retaining structures. The active condition is where the wall moves away
from the soil. The passive condition is where the wall moves into the soil and
the at-rest condition is where the wall does not move. The values listed
assume a horizontal surface adjacent the top and bottom of the wall.
Soil Type Active At-Rest Passive
Sand and Gravel 40 pcf 55 pcf 300 pcf
3.Seismic Conditions
Under seismic conditions, the equivalent fluid weight should be increased by
25 pcf for the active condition, increased by 10 pcf for the at-rest condition
and decreased by 25 pcf for the passive condition. This assumes a peak
horizontal ground acceleration of 0.42g for a 2 percent probability of
exceedance in a 50 year period.
4.Safety Factors
The values recommended above assume mobilization of the soil to achieve
ultimate soil strength. Conventional safety factors used for structural analysis
for such items as overturning and sliding resistance should be used in design.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 13
E.Seismicity, Faulting and Liquefaction
1.Seismicity
Listed below is a summary of the site parameters that may be used with the
2018 International Building Code.
Description Value1
Site Class C2
s RS - MCE ground motion (period=0.2s)0.81g
1 RS - MCE ground motion (period=1.0s)0.30g
aF - Site amplification factor at 0.2s 1.2
vF - Site amplification factor at 1.0s 1.5
GPGA - MCE peak ground acceleration 0.35g
MPGA - Site modified peak ground acceleration 0.42g
Values obtained from information provided by the Applied Technology Council at1
https://hazards.atcouncil.org
Site Class C was selected based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site to the2
depth investigated and our understanding of geologic conditions. Measurement of the shear
wave velocity of the upper 100 feet may find that Site Class B is representative.
2.Faulting
The closest mapped active fault to the site is the Oquirrh fault zone, mapped
approximately 250 feet to the southwest (Utah Geological Survey, 2022).
3.Liquefaction
The site is located within an area mapped as having a "very low" liquefaction
susceptibility (Black and others, 1999).
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, liquefaction is not a potential
hazard at this site.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 14
F.Water Soluble Sulfates
Based on our experience in the area, the natural materials possess a negligible sulfate
attack potential on concrete. Sulfate-resistant cement is not needed for concrete
placed in contact with the soil or bedrock. Other conditions may dictate the type of
cement to be used in concrete for the project.
G.Preconstruction Meeting
A preconstruction meeting should be held with representatives of the owner, project
architect, geotechnical engineer, general contractor, earthwork contractor and other
members of the design team to review construction plans, specifications, methods
and schedule.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
Page 15
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation
engineering practices in the area for the use of the client for design purposes. The
conclusions and recommendations included within the report are based on the information
obtained from the borings drilled at the approximate location indicated on Figure 1 and the
data obtained from laboratory testing. Variations in the subsurface conditions may not
become evident until additional exploration or excavation is conducted. If the subsurface
conditions or groundwater level is found to be significantly different from what is described
above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations given.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jay R. McQuivey, P.E.
Reviewed by Douglas R. Hawkes, P.E., P.G.
JRM/bw
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
6/28/2022
Page 16
REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017; Minimum design loads and associated criteria
for buildings and other structures: ASCE/SEI 7-16, Reston, Virginia.
Black, W.D., Solomon, B.J. and Harty, K.M., 1999; Geology and geologic hazards of the
Tooele Valley and West Desert hazardous industry area, Tooele County, Utah, Utah
Geological Survey Special Study 96.
Elliott, A.H. and Harty, K.M., 2010; Landslide maps of Utah, Provo 30' X 60' quadrangle,
Utah, Utah Geological Survey Map 246DM, Plate 14.
International Code Council, 2017; 2018 International Building Code, Falls Church, Virginia.
Jarrett, R.D. and Malde, H.E., 1987; Paleodischarge of the late Pleistocene Bonneville Flood,
Snake River, Idaho, computed from new evidence; Geological Society of American Bulletin,
v. 99, p. 127-134.
Nelson, A.R. and Personius, S.F., 1993; Surficial Geologic Map of the Weber Segment,
Wasatch Fault Zone, Weber and Davis Counties, Utah, U.S. Geological Survey Map I-2199.
Tooker, E.W. and Roberts, R.J., 1971; Geologic map of the Mills Junction quadrangle,
Tooele County, Utah, US Geological Survey Map GQ-924.
Utah Geological Survey, 2022; Utah Geological Hazard Portal accessed June 22, 2022 at
https://geology.utah.gov/apps/hazards/.
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378
B-1
B-2
B-1
Project No. 983725
TP-1
Project No. 983725
TP-2
Project No. 983725
1220378 Exploratory Boring Locations Figure 1
PROPOSED WELL HOUSE - HITR BACKUP WELL
NORTH 40.6779° & WEST 112.2431°
TOOELE COUNTY, UTAH
LEGEND:
Borings drilled for this study
Boring drilled in 1998 for AGEC
Project No. 983725.
Test Pit excavated in 1998 for
AGEC Project No. 983725.
B-1
B-1
TP-1
0 60 120 feet
Approximate Scale
Gravel 20%Liquid Limit -
Sand 65%Plasticity Index -
Silt and Clay 15%Sample Location
Sample Description
Gravel -Liquid Limit -
Sand -Plasticity Index -
Silt and Clay -Sample Location
Sample Description
GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 3
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project No. 1220378
B-1 @ 12 feet
Silty Sand with Gravel

12"8"
6"
5"
4"
3"
2"
1 1/2"
1"
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
1/4"
No. 4
No. 8
No. 10No. 16
No. 30
No. 40
No. 50
No. 60
No. 80
No. 100No. 2001 Min.4 Min.19 Min.60 Min.
7Hrs.
15 Min.24 Hrs.
304.8203.2
152.4
127.0
100.0
75.0
50.0
38.1
25.0
19.0
12.5
9.5
6.3
4.750
2.360
2.0001.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.250
0.180
0.1500.0750.0370.0190.0090.0050.0020.001
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Diameter of Particle in Millimeters
Hydrometer Analysis Sieve Analysis
Time Readings U.S. Standard Series Clear Square Openings
Clay to Silt Sand
Fine Medium Coarse
Gravel
Fine Coarse Cobbles Boulders
12"8"
6"
5"
4"
3"
2"
1 1/2"
1"
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
1/4"
No. 4
No. 8
No. 10No. 16
No. 30
No. 40
No. 50
No. 60
No. 80
No. 100No. 2001 Min.4 Min.19 Min.60 Min.
7Hrs.
15 Min.24 Hrs.
304.8203.2
152.4
127.0
100.0
75.0
50.0
38.1
25.0
19.0
12.5
9.5
6.3
4.750
2.360
2.0001.180
0.600
0.425
0.300
0.250
0.180
0.1500.0750.0370.0190.0090.0050.0020.001
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Diameter of Particle in Millimeters
Hydrometer Analysis
Time Readings
Sieve Analysis
U.S. Standard Series Clear Square Openings
Clay to Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles BouldersFineCoarseFineMediumCoarse
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.

TABLE I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

PROJECT NUMBER: 1220378
SAMPLE
LOCATION NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
(PCF)
GRADATION ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(PSF)
WATER
SOLUBLE
SULFATE
(%)
SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION
BORING DEPTH
(FEET)
GRAVEL
(%)
SAND
(%)
SILT/
CLAY
(%)
LIQUID LIMIT
(%)
PLASTICITY
INDEX
B-1 4 8 103 20 52 28 Fill; Silty Sand with Gravel
6 7 117 21 52 27 Fill; Silty Sand with Gravel
8 8 106 28 45 27 Fill; Silty Sand with Gravel
12 5 117 20 65 15 Silty Sand with Gravel
14 3 121 41 46 13 Silty Sand with Gravel

APPENDIX
EXPLORATION LEGS
AND
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
AGEC PROJECT NO. 983725
APPLIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.1220378