North Ogden Canyon Road Hazard Identification and Mitigation - Final - REV1

NORTH OGDEN CANYON ROAD
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION
Prepared for Weber County

By Talisman Civil Consultants
5217 South State Street, Suite 200
Murray, Utah 84107
801-743-1300
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I.................................................EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SECTION II............................................................................EXHIBITS
SECTION III.................................................DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
SECTION IV................................................PAVEMENT ANALYSIS
SECTION V..........................................GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

North Ogden Canyon Road Hazzard Identification and Mitigations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION
North Ogden Canyon Road is a primary roadway connection between the communities of North
Ogden City and Liberty in Weber County Utah. The roadway is approximately 4.7 miles long
and was constructed sometime before 1937. The roadway is 2-lanes cut into the southernly
facing hillside of North Ogden Canyon. This road is relatively busy due to commuter and
construction travel between the two communities. Traffic counting performed in June of 2018
have identified average daily traffic of 2,735 vehicles per day.
Due to the mountainous conditions of the roadway there are numerous existing hazards and
maintenance challenges that have been identified throughout the roadway. These conditions
include steep grades, tight curves, high speeds, narrow lanes with minimal or no shoulders, lack
of drainage diches, rock fall hazards, potential roadway stability concerns and general pavement
degradation.
In April 2018 Weber County Engineering selected Talisman Civil Consultants, LLC (TCC) and
Intermountain Geo-Environmental Services, Inc (IGES) to identify the hazards and propose
improvements to mitigate the hazards and improve the overall safety and ability to maintain the
roadway. To accomplish this task TCC and IGES have performed analysis in the following
areas:
• Drainage
• Pavement Analysis
• Roadway Geometry
• Rockfall
• Slope Stability
This report summarizes the hazard assessment and proposed mitigations for the North Ogden
Canyon Road analysis performed by TCC and IGES in 2018. This report will outline the
methodologies used to perform the analysis, provide results and recommendations, and identify
approximate construction costs for recommended improvements.
Due to the current conditions of the roadway, difficult mountainous grading, and geotechnical
hazards it is anticipated that funding will not be available to complete all recommended
improvements in a single project. We understand that funding for large roadway projects is
limited therefore TCC and IGES will work with Weber County to determine the improvement
projects that are the most effective based the availability of funding as funds become available.
1
II. METHODOLOGY
Drainage
The existing drainage conditions of the current roadway includes roadside ditches in some
segments, culvert crossings at primary low points, and a crowned road section. In many
locations throughout the roadway there is little to no space between the roadway and catch slopes
or near vertical rock faces. This causes stormwater runoff to gather along the edge of pavement.
This results in accelerated degradation of the pavement where stormwater saturates and erodes
subgrade below the pavements. In some locations minor low points cause stormwater runoff to
flow across the roadway to the downhill side which degrades pavements, carries debris into the
roadway, and generally results in a higher hazard roadway.
TCC utilized hydraulic/hydrologic modeling software to build existing and proposed models of
the drainage areas that are tributary to the roadway. These models were used to achieve the
following goals:
• Study the existing storm drain infrastructure of the North Ogden Canyon Road for the 10,
25, 50 and 100-year storms.
• Identify deficiencies in the existing stormwater conveyance infrastructure.
• Identify logical places for additional stormwater conveyance infrastructure i.e. drainage
ditches and culverts.
• Measure adequacy of proposed infrastructure improvements in conjunction with existing
infrastructure via the hydraulic models for the 10-year storm.
o Perform analysis of future infrastructure for 25, 50 and 100-year storms.
Improvement priorities were identified by performing model calculations for the existing model
at several different storm events (i.e. 1-year, 2-year, 5- year, 10- year). The areas that were
deficient during the 1-year storm event have been identified as the highest priority and those that
were deficient in a 10+-year storm events were considered the lowest priority. The analysis
identified need for additional culvert crossings at the confluence of existing catchment areas and
additional ditches on the uphill side of the roadway in some places.
TCC then prepared a proposed conditions model to assess the proposed improvements that were
identified in the existing system analysis. The proposed conditions model was developed to
confirm that proposed improvements are sufficient in mitigating up to a 25-year storm event
without undermining pavements, spreading into travel lanes or directing flow across the
roadway.
Drainage Recommendations:
The North Ogden Canyon Road has much of the existing culvert infrastructure located in logical
places to mitigate significant storm events. However, it lacks the adequate channelization to
collect and convey runoff to the existing culverts without undermining pavements and/or
spreading into or across travel lanes. To better mitigate storm flows TCC proposes the following
improvements along the North Ogden Canyon Road in order of importance:
2
1. Where needed, install roadside ditches along the uphill side of the road with a minimum
depth of 1.5’ and minimum span of 3’.
o Bypass construction of ditches that require significant earthwork (for example:
steep rocky faces).
2. Install additional 24” culverts along uphill side of the road at locations detailed in the
attached Exhibit 1B.
3. Remove obstructions that inhibit runoff from the downhill side of the road where
applicable (berms, barriers, etc.).
4. Grade cross slope of future roadwork such that storm flows are directed downhill off the
road.
TCC used the analysis described above to determine a priority of drainage improvements that
will allow the roadway to mitigate a 25-year storm event. The attached Exhibit 1A shows the
proposed drainage improvements located in on a roadway stationing basis and an estimate of
probable construction costs for each drainage related project. Exhibit 1B is a map showing the
location of each drainage improvement. For a more detailed understanding of the drainage along
North Ogden Canyon Road see the drainage report found in Section III of this document.
Exhibit 1A identifies 48 individual drainage improvements, lists the estimated cost, and
identifies priority as described above. The following is a summation of the improvements based
on priority:
Priority Number of Total Cost*

Improvements
High 28 $ 671,360.68
Medium 15 $ 365,554.91
Low 5 $ 89,816.58
All Improvements 48 $ 1,126,732.17
* All cost estimates are based on TCC experience for similar improvements during large scale overall projects in
similar environments during 2018. There is no escalation or inflation to anticipate market conditions or passing of
time.
3
Pavement Analysis
Existing pavements throughout North Ogden Canyons Road are in various states of degradation.
There are significant indications of maintenance activities throughout the alignment. These
indications include skin patches, pothole patching, evidence of previous overlays, and evidence
of horizontal alignment adjustments. Despite these maintenance efforts, pavements exhibit
significant cracking, pavement oxidation, aggregate polishing, rutting, de-laminations and
potholes. This evidence suggests that the overall maintenance of the pavements throughout the
roadway has been difficult for some time.
On July 16 and 17, 2018, TCC completed an evaluation of the current pavement conditions for
the North Ogden Canyon Road. An engineer from TCC inspected the roadway and performed a
pavement condition rating throughout the roadway. TCC identified and rated 26 roadway
sections based on the following objectives:
• Identify the current pavement condition of contiguous segments of roadway with similar
defects.
• Identify cost effective rehabilitations for pavements which fall below acceptable
condition ratings.
• Rate each section of pavement with a low, medium/low, medium, medium/high, or high
priority to assist in the determination of project funding.
The methodology of the program consists of the following steps:
1. Evaluate the roadway to identify specific sections of road with similar defects or distress.
2. Using an Asphalt Pavement Condition Rating Form to rate each identified defect.
3. Sum the defect rating scores and subtract the sum of defects from 100 to establish
condition rating for each section of pavement.
o The evaluation form selected for this program was based on standard evaluation
form produced by the Asphalt Institute Foundation.
4. Identify recommended mitigation based on the overall conditions rating of each segment.
The following is the recommended mitigations for each score range:
Overall Condition Recommended Associated Priority

Rating Range Mitigation
0 – 39 Reconstruction High
40 – 59 Mill and Overlay Medium/High
60 – 79 Patching with Crack Seal Medium

and Slurry Seal
80 – 89 Crack Seal and Slurry Seal Medium/Low
90 – 100 Crack Seal Low
5. Prioritizing pavement rehabilitation is based on overall condition rating, anticipated rate

of degradation, maintenance cost, and safety of public.
4
Pavement Recommendations:
The sections of roadway pavements that were evaluated along North Ogden Canyon Road
resulted in an average rating of 58.7 out of 100. This indicates that the overall roadway is in the
poor or fair condition. There are two sections with a rating below 40 which results in a
recommendation of reconstruction. However, there is only one section with an overall rating
above 90, excellent condition category. Therefore, the majority of pavements need to be
addressed with some maintenance.
The current state of pavements and the evidence of ongoing maintenance efforts is an indication
that there may be some underlaying problems with drainage and/or subsurface soil conditions.
As discussed in the previous paragraphs, significant drainage deficiencies have been identified
throughout the roadway. Furthermore, geotechnical explorations performed by IGES have
identified layers of clay beneath the pavement sections. These clay layers were likely imported
during initial construction of the roadway and are likely contributing to pavement cracking and
unstable subgrade. Therefore, IGES has provided recommendations for a 22” thick pavement
section with geofabrics to mitigate poor quality subgrade in replacement areas. Furthermore,
mill and overlay options should only be considered as short-term solutions with the intent to
rebuild all segments over time. See Section V for the IGES Geologic and Geotechnical
Evaluation, part 6.2 for pavement recommendations.
We recommend that drainage improvements should be prioritized so that pavement

improvements are not wasted due to drainage deficiencies. Furthermore, surface drainage
improvements may help to mitigate subsurface water conditions over time. Therefore, only the
most highly degraded pavements are being considered as high priority. Pavement improvements
should be budgeted on a long-term basis to reconstruct the entire roadway over time.
Exhibit 2A, attached, lists the segments of the pavements that have the same ratings and
mitigations. Exhibit 2A also identifies the pavement priorities and gives an estimated
construction cost for recommended improvements. Exhibit 2B is a map showing the location of
the pavement sections and recommended improvements based on roadway stationing. For a
more in-depth understanding of the pavement analysis performed see the North Ogden Canyon
Road Pavement Analysis Report 2018 located in the Section IV of this report.
Exhibit 2A identifies 26 individual pavement segment improvements, lists the estimated cost,
and identifies priority as described above. The following is a summation of the improvements
based on priority:

Improvements
High 2 $ 938,242.28
Medium/High 13 $ 1,154,011.95
Medium 10 $ 202,034.30
Medium/Low 0 $ 0.00
Low 1 $ 654.16
5
time.
6
Roadway Geometry
The existing roadway geometry includes numerous tight turns, steep road grades, steep catch
slopes off the roadway, various guardrails and barriers, earthen berms and some vertical
retaining walls or rock faces. The posted speed for the roadway is 30 mph in most places and 20
mph through some curves, however, significantly higher speeds have been observed in some
locations. The analysis of the roadway geometry focused specifically on the parameters that
impact roadway safety.
TCC performed a roadway geometry analysis looking at the following design elements in
roadway safety:
• Shoulder width
• Curve speed
• Signage
• Guardrail
Design criteria was identified from the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets (Green Book), AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, and UDOT guardrail standards. The
entire roadway was checked against the design criteria put forth in the design guides and
deficient locations were marked and noted. Deficiencies include insufficient shoulder width,
clear zone, fore slope greater than 2:1, earthen berms within the clear zone, damaged guardrail
locations, damaged, missing or incorrect end treatments and missing signage.
Each roadway geometry deficiency was rated based on two primary factors.
1. Is the deficiency as simple fix, have and significant impact of safety, and/or is it
impacting the effectiveness of existing safety improvements (missing or damaged
guardrail posts)?
2. Is the hazard on a curve or straight section of the roadway?
3. Width of the existing shoulder and would a vehicle be able to make a maneuver to safety
in that distance.
The analysis shows that most of the roadway is either a medium or low rating scale. However,
simple improvements such as replacement of signage, repairs to guardrail and end treatments
have been identified as high priorities.
Roadway Geometry Recommendations:
The following improvements are recommended to improve the roadway geometry and overall
safety:
• Remove downhill earthen berm.
• Widen shoulder and add guardrail
• Grading to minimize fore slopes that are greater than 2:1
• Replace damaged barriers throughout the roadway
• Install end treatments on existing guardrail
• Install speed limit signage matching the existing curves. Some of the existing curves are
rated for speeds less than they are signed.
• Install pedestrian crossing signage
7
Exhibit 3A delineates the areas along the roadway and the improvements needed to comply with
current design guidelines with an estimate of probable construction costs. Exhibit 3B is a map of
the roadway showing the locations of the different roadway improvements based on roadway
stationing.
Exhibit 3A identifies 64 individual roadway geometry improvements, lists the estimated cost,
and identifies priority as described above. The following is a summation of the improvements
based on priority:

Improvements
High 18 $ 17,785.00
Medium 25 $ 626,129.69
Low 21 $ 145,027.33
All Improvements 64 $ 788,942.02
time.
8
Rock fall:
IGES performed rockfall analysis in the rock fall hazard areas A and B as defined by Weber
County Engineering. See Section V for IGES Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation report,
Figure A-2 identifies study areas. On August 1st and 2nd of 2018 an IGES professional licensed
geologist evaluated, characterized, and mapped the rockfall potential throughout each study area.
Segments within each study area have been identified as having a relative rockfall hazard rating
of high, moderate, or low. The rockfall potential varies within each study area, however, IGES
identified that rockfall hazards is highest where colluvial deposits were exposed in road cuts,
followed by Tintic Quartzite bedrock and Maxfield Limestone bedrock.
Rockfall Recommendations:
Typical mitigations for rockfall hazards include scaling (loose rock removal), netting, barriers,
and collection ditches. However, due to the tight conditions, and steep slopes above the roadway
it is understood that methods which require additional roadway width are generally unfeasible.
Therefore, barriers and collection ditches have been eliminated from consideration. The
mitigations that have been identified as feasible include scaling and netting. Scaling efforts
require no specialized tools or equipment and can performed by Weber County staff. It should
also be performed on a periodic basis. This make pricing for scaling efforts difficult to
anticipate. Therefore, costs for scaling have not been included in the construction cost estimates.
Netting and scaling is recommended for most high hazard areas. The rockfall areas within Area
A is top priority and Area B is second priority.
Exhibit 4 lists the location of the Rockfall mitigations, hazard ratings, and the associated costs
for netting mitigations. For a map showing rockfall locations see Exhibit 3B.
Exhibit 4 identifies 45 individual rockfall mitigations, lists the estimated cost, and identifies
priority as described above. The following is a summation of the improvements based on
priority:
Priority Number of Netting Cost*

Areas
High 7 $ 1,648,777.67
Moderate to High 6 $ 824,223.12
Moderate 2 $ 132,025.90
Low to Moderate 5 $ 0.00
Low 8 $ 0.00
* All cost estimates are based on IGES experience for similar improvements during large scale overall projects in
time.
**Costs estimates for Low and Lot to Moderate are not provided as netting is not a solution for these areas
See Section V for a complete discussion of rockfall analysis, findings, and recommendations in
the IGES Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation.
9
Slope Stability:
Slope stability analysis was concentrated to Study Area C as identified on Figure A-2 of the
IGES report. This area is referred to as the “tree-down” area. Historical data of this area shows
that the road was constructed across the head of a mapped landslide. Other observations such as
the inclined trees and excessive cracking at the downhill edge of the pavement also speak to the
potential for stability issues. Similar to other areas of the roadway, bore hole data collected in
the field found clay and organic materials in the fill material between 7 to 8 feet thick below the
roadway, the fill is relatively soft and does not appear to have been properly compacted.
The exploratory bore that was taken in the area suggests that the roadway was constructed to be
level and not sloping west to east. Based on the field data IGES believes that the embankment
and the pavement section are influenced by colluvial creep of high plasticity soils.
Slope Stability Recommendations:
With only one exploratory bore in the area IGES did not have sufficient data for the subsurface
conditions to prepare a complete mitigation plan for the slope stability in Area C. The
preliminary information gathered does not appear to indicate a high potential for catastrophic
failure, but the slopes should not be considered stable. IGES recommends that the area be
monitored by topographic survey for at least one year to determine the rate of slope creep in
inches per year. If the creep is greater than 3-inches per year, IGES recommends an additional
study focusing on this area to determine what mitigation is appropriate for the rate of creep. The
costs of slope stability mitigation is very high, therefore, significant study should be performed
prior to any improvements in this area. Slope stability mitigations have not be identified nor are
costs included to mitigate the slope stability in Area C.
See Section V for a complete discussion of slope stability analysis, findings, and
recommendations in the IGES Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation.
10
II. Conclusion
The analyses performed along North Ogden Canyon Road have shown that the roadway needs
improvements to improve the safety, travel conditions, maintenance activities, and protect
existing and proposed improvements. TCC realizes that the total improvements recommended
are costly and the total is greater than current funding. It is recommended that Weber County
should plan for yearly ongoing funding so that necessary improvements can be made over time.
The following is a summary of estimated construction cost for each priority level:
Priority Category Estimate

Construction
Cost
Drainage $671,360.68
Pavement $ 938,242.28
High Roadway Geometry $ 17,785.00
Rockfall $ 1,648,777.67
Total High Priority Improvements $ 3,276,165.63
Drainage $ 365,554.91
Pavement $ 1,356,046.25
Medium and
Roadway Geometry $626,129.69
Medium/High
Rockfall $ 956,249.02
Total Medium Priority Improvements $ 3,303,979.87
Drainage $ 89,816.58
Pavement $ 654.16
Low and
Roadway Geometry $ 145,027.33
Medium/Low
Rockfall $0.00
Total Low Priority Improvements $ 235,498.00
* All cost estimates are based on TCC and IGES experience for similar improvements during large scale overall
projects in similar environments during 2018. There is no escalation or inflation to anticipate market conditions or
passing of time.
**Costs estimates for Low and Lot to Moderate are not provided as netting is not a solution for these areas
11
Section II
Exhibits
Drainage Improvements and Recommendations: Exhibit 1A
Estimated
Existing Conditions
Area Station Improvement Construction Priority
Storm Event
Cost
SD1 22+60 24" RCP PIPE 1 Year Event $ 4,768.00 High

66+00 TO
SD16 1:1 Slope 1 Year Event $ 215,641.63 High
70+00
95+15 TO
SD22 V-Ditch 1 Year Event $ 15,413.32 High
102+00
102+00 TO
105+40
105+40 TO
SD24 V-Ditch 1 Year Event $ 2,266.66 High
114+00
125+00 TO
SD28 V-ditch 1 Year Event $ 4,250.00 High
131+00
131+00 TO
133+00
133+00 TO
SD30 V-ditch 1 Year Event $ 5,666.66 High
135+00
191+50 TO
SD32 V-ditch 1-year Event $ 5,666.66 High
193+00
193+00 TO
SD33 1:1 Slope 1-year Event $ 122,416.65 High
194+40
194+40 TO
196+00
196+00 TO
197+15
197+15 TO
204+00
204+00 TO
204+60
204+60 TO
207+00
207+00 TO
208+10
208+10 TO
215+00
215+00 TO
218+00
218+00 TO
219+50
45+00 TO
SD12 V-ditch 2 -10 Year Event $ 2,266.66 Medium
56+00
56+00 TO
SD13 1:1 Slope 2 -10 Year Event $ 10,829.17 Medium
61+50
61+50 TO
SD14 V-ditch 2 -10 Year Event $ 9,704.16 Medium
63+00
70+00 TO
SD17 V-ditch 2-10 Year Event $ 850.00 Medium
74+00
74+00 TO
SD18 1:1 Slope 2-10 Year Event $ 22,600.00 Medium
78+00
78+00 TO
SD19 V-ditch 2-10 Year Event $ 1,558.33 Medium
91+00
91+00 TO
93+00
93+00 TO
SD21 V-Ditch 2-10 Year Event $ 4,250.00 Medium
95+15
114+00 TO
115+50
115+50 TO
SD26 V-Ditch 2-10 Year Event $ 3,825.00 Medium
118+50
219+50 TO
222+20
222+20 TO
225+45
225+45 TO
230+70
230+70 TO
231+70
231+70 TO
248+90
118+50 TO
SD27 V-Ditch 10 Year + $ 2,833.33 Low
125+00
135+00 TO
SD31 V-ditch 10 Year + $ 2,833.33 Low
191+50
22+00 TO
SD11 V-ditch 10-year + $ 80,041.59 Low
45+00
63+00 TO
SD15 V-ditch 10 Year + $ 2,125.00 Low
66+00
249+90 TO
SD48 V-Ditch 10-year + $ 1,983.33 Low
259+18
* All cost estimates are based on TCC experience for similar improvements during large scale overall
projects in similar environments during 2018. There is no escalation or inflation to anticipate market
conditions or passing of time.
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT
1B
OVERALL
SUITE 200
801.743.1300
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER: 09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
MURRAY, UT 84107
5217 SOUTH STATE STREET
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
M
TN
801.743.1300
RD
AD
RO
N YON
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
M
O
U
N
TA KEY MAP
IN
RO
AD
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 10+00 TO 28+00
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 28+00 TO 46+00
1B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 46+00 TO 64+00
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 64+00 TO 82+00
D
R OA
N
NYO
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
KEY MAP 1B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 82+00 TO 100+00
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
AD
O NRO
NY
OGDEN CANYON ROAD NORTHOGDENCA
2750
STA: 100+00 TO 118+00 NORTH
KEY MAP 1B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT
STA: 118+00 TO 136+00
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
D
OGDEN CANYON ROAD NR OA
STA: 136+00 TO 154+00 N YO
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
KEY MAP 1B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT
STA: 154+00 TO 172+00
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
D
STA: 172+00 TO 190+00 N YO
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
KEY MAP 1B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 190+00 TO 208+00
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
AD
ONRO
NY
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
18-052
KEY MAP
TCC JOB NUMBER:

OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 208+00 TO 244+00
1B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
4100
OGDEN CANYON ROAD NORTH
STA: 224+00 TO 242+50
DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
OAD
NR
NYO
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
KEY MAP
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 242+50 TO 263+50
1B
Pavement Improvements and Recommendations: Exhibit 2A
Estimated
Approx Station Observation Score Recommended
Area Rating Construction Priority
range Sheet Mitigation
Cost
205+99.35 TO
PM-20 Appendix B Sheet 30 30 Reconstruction $ 747,390.18 High
209+66.32
209+66.32 TO
PM-21 Appendix B Sheet 31 30 Reconstruction $ 190,852.10 High
223+29.51
256+67.69 TO
PM-25 Appendix B Sheet 35 46 Mill/ Overlay $ 52,420.55 Med/High
262+41.93
106+78.62 TO
124+96.48
185+10.31 TO
186+10.67
186+10.67 TO
190+23.77
190+23.77 TO
PM-19 Appendix B sheet 29 50 Mill/ Overlay $ 50,226.54 Med/High
205+99.35
223+29.51 TO
242+12.05
246+59.68 TO
256+67.69
94+51.02 TO
105+85.76
184+71.50 TO
185+10.31
125+59.89 TO
127+01.05
132+12.31 TO
164+31.57
164+31.57 TO
184+71.50
242+12.05 TO
246+59.68
127+01.05 TO
PM-13 Appendix B Sheet 23 63 Slurry Seal/Patchwork $ 1,009.06 Medium
132+12.31
48-41.77 TO
57+90.06
105+85.76 TO
106+78.62
262+41.93 TO
263+42.57
63+66.11 TO
72+77.83
88+99.08 TO
94+51.02
11+28.20 TO
48+41.77
57+90.06 TO
63+66.11
72+77.83 TO
87+14.61
87+14.61 TO
88+99.08
124+96.48 TO
PM-11 Appendix B Sheet 21 95 Crack Seal $ 654.16 Low
125+59.89
* All cost estimates are based on TCC experience for similar improvements during large scale overall projects in similar
environments during 2018. There is no escalation or inflation to anticipate market conditions or passing of time.
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
M
TN
801.743.1300
RD
AD
RO
N YON
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
M
O
U
N
TA KEY MAP
IN
RO
AD
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
PAVEMENT RATING
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 10+00 TO 28+00
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 28+00 TO 46+00
2B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
PAVEMENT RATING
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 46+00 TO 64+00
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 64+00 TO 82+00
D
R OA
N
NYO
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
KEY MAP 2B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
PAVEMENT RATING
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 82+00 TO 100+00
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
AD
O NRO
NY
2750
STA: 100+00 TO 118+00 NORTH
KEY MAP 2B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 118+00 TO 136+00
PAVEMENT RATING
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
D
STA: 136+00 TO 154+00 N YO
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
KEY MAP 2B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 154+00 TO 172+00
PAVEMENT RATING
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
D
STA: 172+00 TO 190+00 N YO
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
KEY MAP 2B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
PAVEMENT RATING
STA: 190+00 TO 208+00
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
AD
ONRO
NY
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
18-052
KEY MAP
TCC JOB NUMBER:

OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 208+00 TO 244+00
2B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
4100
STA: 224+00 TO 242+50
2900
EAST
PAVEMENT RATING
M
TN
RD
OAD
NR
NYO
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
KEY MAP
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 242+50 TO 263+50
2B
Roadway Safety Improvements and Recommendations: Exhibit 3A
Area
Approx. Station Recommended
Area Observation Improvement Priority
range Mitigation
Cost
2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Widen shoulder, Add

26+00 TO 28+00 $ 14,015.73 Medium
Little to no shoulder barrier
2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

Widen shoulder, Add
28+00 TO 28+50 Minor shoulder grading $ 1,595.00 Low
barrier
required

28+50 TO 29+50 $ 5,855.21 Medium

Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required
Little to no shoulder, Widen shoulder, Add
29+95 TO 30+50 $ 21,612.76 Medium
SI-1 Grading will not catch at barrier, Stabilize slope
2:1
Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required
31+50 TO 32+90 $ 55,014.30 Medium
Grading will not catch at barrier, Stabilize slope
2:1
32+90 TO 34+00 $ 6,925.52 Medium

Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required

Widen shoulder, Add
36+90 T0 38+10 Minor shoulder grading $ 6,638.68 Low
barrier
required
SI-2 38+10 TO 39+10 $ 39,395.93 Medium
2:1
Widen shoulder, Add
39+10 T0 40+30 Minor shoulder grading $ 6,638.68 Low
barrier
required

SI-3 42+00 TO 43+00 Minor shoulder grading Grade shoulder 8:1 $ 4,691.26 Low
required
SI-4 58+10 TO 59+55 Remove existing berm Grade shoulder 8:1 $ 8,747.76 Low
SI-5 60+10 TO 65+00 Remove existing berm Grade shoulder 8:1 $ 18,097.76 Low
Widen shoulder, Add
SI-6 70+00 TO 72+00 Minor shoulder grading $ 9,320.07 Low
barrier
required, 0-2' Berm

Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required, 0-2' Berm

Widen shoulder, Add
80+10 TO 83+10 Minor shoulder grading $ 14,460.88 Medium
barrier
required
2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Remove existing berm,

SI-8 83+10 TO 85+00 $ 7,687.96 Low
0+2.5' Berm Grade shoulder at 8:1

Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required

Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required, 0-2' Berm
2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Remove existing berm,

SI-9 99+20 TO 103+40 $ 10,201.80 Low
0+2.5' Berm Grade shoulder at 8:1

Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required, 0-2' Berm
Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required

Widen shoulder, Add
SI-11 160+00 TO 164+60 Minor shoulder grading $ 17,425.34 Medium
barrier
required

Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required
SI-12 2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Widen shoulder, Add

185+70 TO 186+00 $ 3,720.63 Medium

188+30 TO 192+00 $ 18,504.24 Medium
202+30 TO 205+30 $ 119,311.66 Medium
2:1
Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required
SI-13 Little to no shoulder, Widen shoulder, Add
206+10 TO 207+60 $ 58,943.89 Medium
2:1
207+60 TO 208+75 $ 3,162.50 Medium

Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required

210+25 TO 211+40 $ 8,664.19 Medium
211+40 TO 212+80 $ 47,548.07 Medium
2:1
212+80 TO 213+20 $ 2,518.37 Medium
Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required

214+85 TO 216+70 $ 11,647.46 Medium
216+70 TO 217+65 $ 37,331.13 Medium
2:1
217+65 TO 218+00 $ 3,818.93 Medium

SI-15 231+00 TO 234+00 $ 25,575.80 Medium

235+00 TO 240+00 $ 32,903.51 Medium
SI-16
Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required

SI-17 242+50 TO 243+60 $ 10,973.10 Medium

246+00 TO 246+50 $ 4,571.84 Low
SI-18
Widen shoulder, Add
barrier
required
No Rounded End Add Chevron warning for

MC-1 48+14 $ 200.00 High
Treatment Markings Rounded End Section

MC-2 58+10 $ 200.00 High
Damaged Existing Repair\Replace Damaged
MC-3 117+32 $ 800.00 High
Guardrail Posts
MC-4 120+04 $ 200.00 High
Add Pedestrian Crossing
No Pedestrian Crossing
MC-5 148+75 signs for both directions $ 900.00 High
signs
of travel

MC-6 164+66 TO 165+75 $ 4,800.00 High
Guardrail Posts (approx. 6)
MC-7 171+80 $ 800.00 High
Guardrail Posts
MC-8 177+43 $ 800.00 High
Guardrail Posts
MC-9 178+14 $ 200.00 High
Deflect barrier as needed
Existing Conc Barrier,
to achieve clear zone.
MC-10 186+04 Sloped end section in $ 2,300.00 High
Shoulder widening
clear zone
required
Damaged Existing Conc
MC-11 192+90 Replace damaged barrier $ 825.00 High
Barrier
MC-12 194+16 $ 800.00 High
Guardrail Posts
25 MPH Curve no Horiz
MC-13 54+50 $ 900.00 High
Warning Sign
MC-14 60+00 Add warning signage for $ 900.00 High
Warning Sign
winding road W1-5 and
MC-15 63+00 suppletory plaque 20 $ 900.00 High
Warning Sign
MPH next half mile
MC-16 68+70 (Both directions) $ 900.00 High
Warning Sign
MC-17 71+10 $ 900.00 High
Warning Sign
Add warning signage
25 MPH Curve no Horiz Right curve W1-2 and 20
MC-18 247+30 $ 460.00 High
Warning Sign MHP W13-1P (east
bound)
* All cost estimates are based on TCC experience for similar improvements during large scale overall projects in similar
environments during 2018. There is no escalation or inflation to anticipate market conditions or passing of time.
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
M
TN
801.743.1300
RD
AD
RO
N YON
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
M
O
U
N
TA KEY MAP
IN
RO
AD
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
ROADWAY SAFTEY
EXHIBIT 3B
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 10+00 TO 28+00
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 28+00 TO 46+00
3B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
ROADWAY SAFTEY
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 46+00 TO 64+00
EXHIBIT 3B
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 64+00 TO 82+00
D
R OA
N
NYO
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
KEY MAP 3B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
ROADWAY SAFTEY
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 82+00 TO 100+00
EXHIBIT 3B
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
AD
O NRO
NY
2750
STA: 100+00 TO 118+00 NORTH
KEY MAP 3B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 118+00 TO 136+00
ROADWAY SAFTEY
EXHIBIT 3B
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
D
STA: 136+00 TO 154+00 N YO
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
KEY MAP 3B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 154+00 TO 172+00
ROADWAY SAFTEY
EXHIBIT 3B
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
4100
NORTH
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
D
STA: 172+00 TO 190+00 N YO
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
KEY MAP 3B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 190+00 TO 208+00
ROADWAY SAFTEY
4100
NORTH
EXHIBIT 3B
2900
EAST
M
TN
RD
AD
ONRO
NY
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
18-052
KEY MAP
TCC JOB NUMBER:

OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 208+00 TO 244+00
3B
SUITE 200
MURRAY, UT 84107
801.743.1300
09.12.2018
DATE SUBMITTED:
NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE
4100
STA: 224+00 TO 242+00
2900
EAST
ROADWAY SAFTEY
M
TN
RD
EXHIBIT 3B
OAD
NR
NYO
NORTHOGDENCA
2750
NORTH
KEY MAP
18-052
TCC JOB NUMBER:
OGDEN CANYON ROAD
STA: 242+00 TO 262+00
3B
Rockfall Improvements and Recommendations: Exhibit 4
Weber
County
Approximate Relative Rockfall Hazard Recommended
Rockfall Geologic Unit Observations Priority Netting Cost Range
Stationing Range Rating Mitigation
Hazard
Area
Highly fractured quartzite
Tintic Quartzite
54+77 to 56+77 bedrock outcrops; small Low None
(Ct)
clast sizes
Tintic Quartzite Fractured bedrock with

56+77 to 57+44 Moderate Scaling
(Ct) some loose boulders
57+44 to 58+38 Colluvium (Qc) Steeper colluvial slope Moderate to High 6 Scaling
Possible
58+38 to 60+76 Colluvium (Qc) Gentler colluvial slope Low to Moderate
occasional scaling

Tintic Quartzite Possible
60+76 to 62+27 bedrock outcrops; small Low to Moderate
(Ct) occasional scaling
clast sizes
Alluvium and
62+27 to 63+76 Large drainage Low None
Colluvium (Qac)

Tintic Quartzite Possible
63+76 to 64+54 bedrock outcrops; small Low to Moderate
(Ct) occasional scaling
clast sizes
Includes some possible

64+54 to 69+05 Colluvium (Qc) landslide deposits; highly High 3 Scaling/Netting $ 271,518.08 $ 325,821.70
cobbly slopes
Alluvium and
69+05 to 72+10 Drainage area Low None
Colluvium (Qac)

landslide deposits;
72+10 to 81+01 Colluvium (Qc) highest concern from High 1 Scaling/Netting $ 529,857.53 $ 635,829.04
approximately 76+85 to
A 79+14
Tintic Quartzite
81+01 to 81+92 Thickly bedded outcrop Low None
(Ct)
Some loose Possible
81+92 to 83+00 Colluvium (Qc) Moderate $ 73,275.32 $ 87,930.38
cobbles/boulders scaling/netting
Tintic Quartzite
83+00 to 84+85 Granular outcrop Low None
(Ct)
Contains some active
84+85 to 85+43 Colluvium (Qc) High 7 Scaling/Netting $ 46,064.21 $ 55,277.05
rockfall chutes
85+43 to 87+13 Colluvium (Qc) Dense vegetation Low None
Tintic Quartzite Heavily fractured 50' Possible

87+13 to 88+64 Moderate
(Ct) outcrop; thin ditches occasional scaling
Tintic Quartzite
88+64 to 90+00 Active rockfall chutes High Netting $ 38,585.75 $ 46,302.90
(Ct)
Mix of Tintic
Quartzite (Ct) Some loose
90+00 to 90+30 High Scaling/Netting $ 59,669.01 $ 71,602.81
and Colluvium cobbles/boulders
(Qc)
2
Bedrock outcrops with 2
Tintic Quartzite active rockfall chutes, up
90+30 to 94+61 Moderate to High Scaling/Netting $ 145,146.02 $ 174,175.22
(Ct) to 50' cuts, bedrock
overhangs
landslide deposits;
94+61 to 96+26 Colluvium (Qc) High Scaling/Netting $ 104,076.53 $ 124,891.84
abundant cobbles on
slope
Alluvium and
96+26 to 97+26 Small drainage Low None
Colluvium (Qac)
Cuts up to 40'; common

97+26 to 102+73 Colluvium (Qc) High 5 Scaling/Netting $ 324,210.28 $ 389,052.34
loose cobbles/boulders
Maxfield Limestone outcrop, in

190+32 to 193+00 Low to Moderate Minor scaling
Limestone (Cm) part colluvium
Maxfield Blocky outcropping; no Regular scaling or

193+00 to 194+58 Moderate $ 36,746.27 $ 44,095.53
Limestone (Cm) ditch netting
Maxfield
194+58 to 197+97 Possible dip-slope failures Moderate to High Scaling/Netting $ 111,769.40 $ 134,123.28
Limestone (Cm)
Some loose Scaling; possibly

197+97 to 199+17 Colluvium (Qc) Moderate to High $ 159,788.69 $ 191,746.43
cobbles/boulders netting
Maxfield
199+17 to 201+02 Colluvium above bedrock Moderate to High Scaling/Netting $ 98,877.76 $ 118,653.31
Limestone (Cm)
Mix of Maxfield 4 Possible

201+02 to 201+94 Some very large boulders Moderate to High $ 57,587.88 $ 69,105.45
Limestone (Cm) scaling/netting
and Colluvium
(Qc)
Possible dip-slope
Maxfield
201+94 to 205+09 failures; end of significant Moderate to High Scaling/Netting $ 113,682.85 $ 136,419.42
Limestone (Cm)
rockfall hazards
Ditches largely free of Possible

205+09 to 207+12 Colluvium (Qc) Low to Moderate
debris occasional scaling
Maxfield
207+12 to 207+57 Small outcrop Low None
Limestone (Cm)
* All cost estimates are based on TCC experience for similar improvements during large scale overall projects in similar environments during 2018. There is no
escalation or inflation to anticipate market conditions or passing of time.
** Costs for the Low and Low to Moderate Hazzard Rating are not provided because they are a scaling and not a netting solution.
North Ogden Divide Pavement Management Report
Section III
Drainage Report
DRAINAGE ANALYSIS

Murray, Utah 84107
801-743-1300
North Ogden Divide
Drainage Analysis
Prepared For
Weber County
Prepared by
Talisman Civil Consultants, LLC

Murray Utah, 84107
OFESS I ON
PR A
D
E
L
REG I ST ER
EN
No. 7899506
G I NEER
RYAN W.
CATHEY
ST H
AT A
E OF UT
December 18, 2018

TALISMAN CIVIL CONSULTANTS, LLC
5217 South State St, Suite 200, Murray, UT, 84107 | 801.743.1300 | www.talismancivil.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 GOALS 1
1.2 METHODOLOGY 1
1.2.1 HYDROLOGIC & HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 1
2.0 ANALYSIS 2
2.1 ANALYSIS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) 2
2.2 ANALYSIS (FUTURE CONDITIONS) 3
3.0 RESULTS & RECCOMENDATIONS 4

3.1 RESULTS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) 4
3.2 RESULTS (FUTURE CONDITIONS) 4
3.3 RECOMMENATIONS 4
APPENDIX 5
EXHIBIT 01 EXISTING CULVERTS & CATCHMENT AREAS 6
EXHIBIT 02 FUTURE CULVERTS & CATCHMENT AREAS 7
EXHIBIT 03 EAST AND WEST DRAINAGE AREAS 8
EXHIBIT 04 CHANNEL PRIORITIZATION 9
NOAA ATLAS 14 PRECIPTATION DATA 10
FUTURE CURVE NUMBER CALCULATIONS 14
FUTURE CATCHMENT AREA TABLE (10 YEAR) 15
FUTURE CATCH BASIN (CULVERT INLET TABLE 10 YEAR) 19
FUTURE CHANNEL TABLE (10 YEAR) 23


1.0 – INTRODUCTION
The North Ogden Divide is a 4.7-mile canyon pass connecting North Ogden to Eden, Utah.
Talisman Civil Consultants was tasked by Weber County to research the existing rainfall drainage
conditions of the pass, to produce a hydraulic model, and analyze the existing storm drain
infrastructure of the North Ogden Divide to better understand its deficiencies and propose solutions
for future rainfall runoff mitigation.
1.1 – Goals
Goals for the study include:
• Study the existing storm drain infrastructure of the North Ogden Canyon Road for the 10,
25, 50 and 100-year storms.
• Identify deficiencies in the existing stormwater conveyance infrastructure.
• Identify logical places for additional stormwater conveyance infrastructure i.e. drainage
ditches and culverts.
• Measure adequacy of proposed infrastructure improvements in conjunction with existing
infrastructure via the hydraulic models for the 10-year storm.
o Perform analysis of future infrastructure for 25, 50 and 100-year storms.
1.2 – Methodology
The documentation that was used to create the model is an assortment of surveyed utility
information, topographic information from USGS, and precipitation information from the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The hydraulic storm model produced in this study were performed using Bentley Haestad’s
SewerGEMS modeling software with inputs derived from ArcGIS information and Excel
calculations. The infrastructure layout for the hydraulic models was achieved by utilizing surveyed
CAD and GIS information based on the NAD 1983 Utah North State Plane coordinate system.
The parameters used to evaluate the existing and future capacity requirements of the storm drain
conveyance system are based on Weber County Municipal Code Title 40 – Storm Drainage, and
Weber County storm water runoff design guidelines. The storm drain conveyance system has been
divided into tributary areas of development infrastructure. No detention has been considered. See
Exhibits 01 and 02 in the Appendix.
1.2.1 – Hydrologic & Hydraulic Criteria
The storm water model utilizes SCS curve number methodology:
• The Soil Conservation Service Method (commonly known as SCS or TR-55 Method) was
used for analyzing the hydrology of site.
• The basis of the curve number method is the empirical relationship between the retention
(rainfall not converted into runoff) and runoff properties of the watershed and the rainfall.

1
It accounts for most runoff producing watershed characteristics: soil type, land
use/treatment, surface condition, and antecedent moisture condition.
• Composite Curve Numbers (CN Values) were developed by reviewing impervious, and
pervious areas, and are based on poor mountain brush CN table values
TCC utilized the following approach to calculate times of concentration:

• All catch basins have a minimum time of concentration of 10 minutes.
• The following time of concentration equation was used: T=1.8*(1.1-c)D0.5/S1/3
o T is the time of concentration in minutes
o Where C is a weighted dimensionless runoff coefficient based on hydrologic
criteria of the site
o D is the longest length of flow (ft)
o S is the slope (ft/ft)
Precipitation intensity data was obtained via NOAA Atlas 14 using a latitude and longitude
corresponding to the North Ogden Divide, Utah. The precipitation data was used to created SCS
Type II storm distribution hydrograph curves. The NOAA precipitation data utilized in the model
can be found in the Appendix, and in Table 1 below.
Table 1 – NOAA Atlas 14 Eden Utah Precipitation Data
24 Hour 1 Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year
Storm
Rainfall 2.38 2.93 3.52 4.01 4.70 5.24 5.79
(in)
2.0 – Analysis
The following section summarizes the analysis of the existing and future conditions the North
Ogden Divide. An important general observation of the canyon is that any runoff west of the North
Ogden Divide Trailhead is directed west, and any runoff east of the Trailhead is directed east.
From herein, analysis of the canyon can be divided into two entities: West Drainage and East
Drainage. For a depiction, see Exhibit 03 in the Appendix.
2.1 – Analysis (Existing Conditions)
There are 15 existing culverts, and 3 catch basins along the North Ogden Divide. 11 of the culverts
– and 2 catch basins are located in the West Drainage. 4 culverts and 1 catch basin are located in
the East Drainage. Catchment areas for existing storm drain infrastructure have been identified
and delineated. The location the existing culverts are logically implemented along the bottom of
natural washes. See Exhibit 01 in the Appendix. The road is located on the north side of the canyon,
and consequently, the catchment areas contributing to runoff are comprised of mountains north of
2
the road. The areas range from 1.75 acres to 886 acres. The catchment slopes are steep, varying
from 18% slopes to 57% and promote high volumes of runoff.
The four culverts along the East Drainage all occur along the uphill side of the road and are
connected by natural drainage ditches – that is ditches that appear to be formed by the natural flow
of stormwater runoff instead of being purposely constructed storm water mitigation infrastructure.
These natural ditches are not uniform along the length of the road but rather ebb and flows along
the natural flow of the storm runoff. Additional sporadic storm drain infrastructure such as drive
way culverts can be found on the eastern end of the road.
Eight of the eleven culverts within the West drainage are located on the uphill side of the road.
The sizes vary between 12” and 48”. There exists berms on the downhill side of the mountain
inhibiting flow down to the valley below. Three of the eleven culverts are located on the downhill
side of the mountain, typically a pipe embedded in a berm. The assumed purpose of the berms are
to direct storm flow to the culverts located on downhill side of the road. Furthermore, two catch
basins are embedded into the asphalt along concrete barriers on the downhill side of the road.
An analysis of the existing drainage channels has been performed. The results of this analysis are
to be used as the guide for the location prioritization of a future drainage channels.
2.2 – Analysis (Proposed Conditions)
Strategic positions for six additional 24” culverts were established in the hydraulic model. Existing
and proposed culverts are intended to be connected by open air “V-ditches” with a 1.5’ depth and
3’ span. The locations of the future culverts were determined by analyzing the natural topography
of the canyon and placing culverts at the confluence of natural drainage routes of the uphill
catchment areas and the road. The effort is made to bypass the majority of storm flow straight
down the mountain, with any remaining flow being directed downstream via a drainage ditch and
eventually discharged via a culvert. By implementing the drainage ditches on the uphill side of the
road, storm water runoff onto the road is avoided as much as possible.
The implementation of additional culverts required the delineation of new catchment areas for the
culverts and affect the catchment areas of the several existing culverts. Future catchment areas can
be seen in Exhibit 02 in the Appendix. All culverts and ditches have been modeled and are
intended to be implemented along the uphill side of the mountain. Ditches and or berms to direct
storm flows along the downhill side of the road are deemed unnecessary. However, some minor
grading on the downhill side of the road may be necessary.

3
3.0 – Results & Recommendations
3.1 – Results (Existing Conditions)
The modeling results show that there are areas within the East and West drainage that are
ineffective at mitigating storm runoff. Because there is very little focused channelization to the
culverts, the existing culverts are underutilized; storm flows run onto the road and either continue
off-road down the mountain or are confined to the travel-way by a berm on the downhill side of
the road. An analysis has been performed to prioritize the locations that need drainage channels.
See Exhibit 04 in the Appendix. High priority locations are areas along the road that fail within a
1-year storm and need a channel as soon as possible. Medium Priority locations fail sometime
between a 2 and 10-year storm and require a channel after high priority areas have been completed,
while Low Priority locations are areas from which the existing conditions can handle at least a 10
year storm, and the construction of a channel is recommended, but not required.
3.2 – Results (Proposed Conditions)
The results of the model have shown that the 1.5’ deep and 3’ wide V-ditches implemented along
the uphill side of the road in conjunction with additional 24” culverts are adequate in mitigating
up to the 25-year storm flow. While deficient in some places, the proposed infrastructure is still
effective at mitigating the 50 and 100-year storm flows. See the Appendix for the full modeling
results of the future conditions.
3.3 – Recommendations
The North Ogden Divide has much of the existing culvert infrastructure located among logical
places to mitigate significant storm events. However, it lacks the adequate channelization to collect
and focus runoff to make the best use of the existing culverts. To better mitigate future storm flows
TCC proposes the following recommendations to storm drain infrastructure along the north Ogden
Divide in order of importance
1. Implement V-ditches along the uphill side of the road with a depth of 1.5’ and span 3’.
o Bypass construction of ditches that require significant earthwork (for example:
steep rocky faces).
2. Implement additional 24” culverts along up hill side of the road at locations detailed in
Exhibit 02 in the Appendix.
3. Remove obstructions that inhibit runoff from the downhill side of the road where
applicable (berms, barriers, etc…).
4. Grade cross slope of future roadwork such that storm flows are directed downhill off the
road.

4
Appendix
5
North Ogden
N Divide
Exhibit 01
Legend
Road
Catchment Area 18
Catchment Area 17
Catchment Area 19
!
( Existing Culverts
!
(
!
( !
(
!
(
Catchment Area 16
!
(
Catchment Area 15
Catchment Area 11 Catchment Area 13
Catchment Area 12
Catchment Area 14
!
(
( !
! (

!
(
!
( Catchment Area 10
Catchment Area 5
!
(
Catchment Area 7
Catchment Area 9 !
(
Catchment Area 3
Catchment Area 8
!
( Catchment Area 4
!
(
!
( Catchment Area 6
( !
! (
!
( !
(
North Ogden Divide Drainage Analysis

Exhibit 01 - Existing Culverts & Catchment Areas
October 2018
6
North Ogden
N Divide
Exhibit 02
Legend
Road
Catchment Area Future 5
Catchment Area 17
Catchment Area 18 F
Catchment Area 19
!
( Existing Culverts
Proposed Culverts
!
( !
(
!
(
!
(
Proposed Channel
!
(
!
(
!
(
Catchment Area 16 F
!
(
!
(
Catchment Area 15
Catchment Area 12
Catchment Area Future 1 Catchment Area 14
!
(
( !
! (
!
( Catchment Area 1 Catchment Area Future 2
!
(
!
( Catchment Area 10
Catchment Area 2 F Catchment Area 5
!
(
!
( Catchment Area 7
Catchment Area 9 !
(
Catchment Area 3
Catchment Area 8
!
( Catchment Area 4
!
(
!
( Catchment Area 6
( !
! (
!
( !
(

Exhibit 02 - Future Culverts & Catchment Areas
October 2018
7
North Ogden
N Divide
East Drainage
Exhibit 03
Legend
Road
West Drainage

Exhibit 03 - East and West Drainage Areas
October 2018
8
North Ogden
N Divide
Exhibit 04
Legend
!
( Proposed Culverts
!
( Existing Culverts
Proposed Channels
!
( !
(
!
(
Road
!
(
!
( High Priority Channel
!
(
Medium Priority Channel
!
( Low Priority Channel
Rock Face
!
(
!
(
( !
! (
!
( !
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( !
(
!
( ( !
! (
!
( !
( !
(

Exhibit 04 - Future Channel Priority
October 2018
9
10
11
12
13
Future Curve Number Calculations
Calculated
Amount of Amount of Amount of Amount of Channel Channel Calculated Tc
Amount of Landscaped Landscaped Landscaped Landscaped Upstream Downstream Flow Flow Tc Kerby's Effective
Total Area Impervious Area for Soil Area for Soil Area for Soil Area for Soil Weighted Rational C Elevation Elevation Length Slope Rational Formula Tc
Area Name (SF) Area (SF) type A (SF) type B (SF) type C (SF) type D (SF) SCS CN Number (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (%) Method (Min) (Min)
Catchment Area 1 828,133 595,140 232,993 0 0 53 0.32 5,900 5,025 1,673 52% 71 21 71
Catchment Area 2 F 324,419 207,476 116,943 0 0 55 0.33 5,900 5,075 2,023 41% 84 25 84
Catchment Area 3 864,657 31,942 832,715 0 0 66 0.49 5,825 5,200 2,368 26% 84 29 84
Catchment Area 4 76,367 0 76,367 0 0 67 0.50 5,650 5,300 734 48% 38 15 38
Catchment Area 5 2,664,597 0 2,664,597 0 0 67 0.50 7,475 5,350 4,038 53% 85 32 85
Catchment Area 6 200,581 0 200,581 0 0 67 0.50 5,700 5,375 1,100 30% 54 20 54
Catchment Area 7 3,614,780 0 3,614,780 0 0 67 0.50 7,200 5,425 4,676 38% 102 37 102
Catchment Area 8 138,044 0 138,044 0 0 67 0.50 6,200 5,625 1,008 57% 41 16 41
Catchment Area 9 709,821 0 709,821 0 0 67 0.50 6,550 5,630 2,631 35% 79 29 79
Catchment Area 10 2,554,172 0 2,554,172 0 0 67 0.50 7,200 5,750 4,282 34% 102 37 102
Catchment Area 11 15,941,414 0 15,008,837 932,577 0 68 0.50 8,250 5,900 6,316 37% 120 43 120
Catchment Area 12 1,371,962 0 1,263,418 108,544 0 68 0.50 7,350 6,075 3,157 40% 82 30 82
Catchment Area 13 3,134,839 0 1,193,793 1,941,045 0 73 0.58 7,300 6,100 3,684 33% 83 34 83
Catchment Area 14 3,707,586 0 0 3,707,586 0 77 0.63 7,150 5,950 4,446 27% 88 39 88
Catchment Area 15 2,439,827 0 277,192 2,162,636 0 76 0.60 6,475 5,775 2,575 27% 70 30 70
Catchment Area 16 F 751,972 0 0 751,972 0 77 0.63 7,075 5,650 2,338 61% 48 24 48
Catchment Area 17 38,585,174 2,833,403 12,703,386 23,048,385 0 72 0.55 8,350 5,500 10,576 27% 157 59 157
Catchment Area 18 F 238,396 0 108,227 130,169 0 72 0.56 5,835 5,410 1,351 31% 52 22 52
Catchment Area 19 1,139,427 0 820,056 319,371 0 70 0.52 5,825 5,200 3,531 18% 110 39 110
Catchment Area Future 1 8,278,486 969,781 7,308,705 0 0 65 0.46 8,075 4,975 6,644 47% 121 42 121
Catchment Area Future 2 4,017,426 697,831 3,319,595 0 0 64 0.45 7,475 5,100 4,395 54% 96 33 96
Catchment Area Future 3 737,706 0 0 737,706 0 77 0.63 7,075 5,710 3,023 45% 61 29 61
Catchment Area Future 4 1,360,824 0 19,944 1,340,880 0 77 0.62 7,150 5,625 2,821 54% 57 27 57
Catchment Area Future 5 3,141,323 0 1,890,225 1,251,098 0 71 0.54 6,300 5,460 2,856 29% 81 31 81
14
Catchment Area Table: 10 Year
Current Time: 24.00 hours
Label Outflow Area (User Time of SCS CN Flow

Element Defined) Concentration (Maximum)
(ft²) (min) (cfs)
CM-1 CB-1 828,133 71.000 53.000 2.37
CM-2F CB-2 324,419 84.000 55.000 1.08
CM-3 CB-3 864,657 84.000 66.000 7.85
CM-4 CB-4 76,367 38.000 67.000 1.32
CM-5 CB-5 2,664,597 85.000 67.000 25.78
CM-6 CB-6 200,581 54.000 67.000 2.71
CM-7 CB-7 3,614,780 102.000 67.000 30.31
CM-8 CB-8 138,044 41.000 67.000 2.28
CM-9 CB-9 709,821 79.000 67.000 7.24
CM-10 CB-10 2,554,172 102.000 67.000 21.42
CM-11 CB-11 15,941,414 120.000 68.000 125.90
CM-12 CB-12 1,371,962 82.000 68.000 14.53
CM-13 CB-13 3,134,839 83.000 73.000 44.05
CM-14 CB-14 2,527,909 76.000 77.000 46.24
CM-15 CB-15 2,439,827 70.000 76.000 45.51
CM-16F CB-16 751,972 48.000 77.000 19.14
CM-17 CB-17 38,585,174 157.000 72.000 314.97
CM-18F CB-18 238,396 52.000 72.000 4.48
CM-19 CB-19 1,139,427 110.000 70.000 10.89
Future CM 1 Future Inlet 1 8,278,486 121.000 65.000 53.20
Future CM 3 Future Inlet 3 737,706 61.000 77.000 15.83
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Bentley SewerGEMS CONNECT Edition
Storm Drain Model - Future Conditions.stsw Center [10.00.00.40]
10/1/2018 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
15

(ft²) (min) (cfs)
CM-1 CB-1 828,133 71.000 53.000 4.45
CM-2F CB-2 324,419 84.000 55.000 1.90
CM-3 CB-3 864,657 84.000 66.000 11.38
CM-4 CB-4 76,367 38.000 67.000 1.90
CM-5 CB-5 2,664,597 85.000 67.000 36.96
CM-6 CB-6 200,581 54.000 67.000 3.88
CM-7 CB-7 3,614,780 102.000 67.000 43.43
CM-8 CB-8 138,044 41.000 67.000 3.28
CM-9 CB-9 709,821 79.000 67.000 10.37
CM-10 CB-10 2,554,172 102.000 67.000 30.69
CM-11 CB-11 15,941,414 120.000 68.000 177.95
CM-12 CB-12 1,371,962 82.000 68.000 20.68
CM-13 CB-13 3,134,839 83.000 73.000 59.61
CM-14 CB-14 2,527,909 76.000 77.000 60.62
CM-15 CB-15 2,439,827 70.000 76.000 60.08
CM-16F CB-16 751,972 48.000 77.000 25.00
CM-17 CB-17 38,585,174 157.000 72.000 429.53
CM-18F CB-18 238,396 52.000 72.000 6.09
CM-19 CB-19 1,139,427 110.000 70.000 15.07
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
16

(ft²) (min) (cfs)
CM-1 CB-1 828,133 71.000 53.000 6.49
CM-2F CB-2 324,419 84.000 55.000 2.69
CM-3 CB-3 864,657 84.000 66.000 14.46
CM-4 CB-4 76,367 38.000 67.000 2.40
CM-5 CB-5 2,664,597 85.000 67.000 46.62
CM-6 CB-6 200,581 54.000 67.000 4.91
CM-7 CB-7 3,614,780 102.000 67.000 54.97
CM-8 CB-8 138,044 41.000 67.000 4.14
CM-9 CB-9 709,821 79.000 67.000 13.07
CM-10 CB-10 2,554,172 102.000 67.000 38.84
CM-11 CB-11 15,941,414 120.000 68.000 223.11
CM-12 CB-12 1,371,962 82.000 68.000 25.97
CM-13 CB-13 3,134,839 83.000 73.000 72.73
CM-14 CB-14 2,527,909 76.000 77.000 72.60
CM-15 CB-15 2,439,827 70.000 76.000 72.23
CM-16F CB-16 751,972 48.000 77.000 29.88
CM-17 CB-17 38,585,174 157.000 72.000 526.80
CM-18F CB-18 238,396 52.000 72.000 7.46
CM-19 CB-19 1,139,427 110.000 70.000 18.65
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
17

(ft²) (min) (cfs)
CM-1 CB-1 828,133 71.000 53.000 8.97
CM-2F CB-2 324,419 84.000 55.000 3.62
CM-3 CB-3 864,657 84.000 66.000 17.87
CM-4 CB-4 76,367 38.000 67.000 2.95
CM-5 CB-5 2,664,597 85.000 67.000 57.31
CM-6 CB-6 200,581 54.000 67.000 6.04
CM-7 CB-7 3,614,780 102.000 67.000 67.77
CM-8 CB-8 138,044 41.000 67.000 5.09
CM-9 CB-9 709,821 79.000 67.000 16.06
CM-10 CB-10 2,554,172 102.000 67.000 47.88
CM-11 CB-11 15,941,414 120.000 68.000 273.85
CM-12 CB-12 1,371,962 82.000 68.000 31.81
CM-13 CB-13 3,134,839 83.000 73.000 87.01
CM-14 CB-14 2,527,909 76.000 77.000 85.50
CM-15 CB-15 2,439,827 70.000 76.000 85.36
CM-16F CB-16 751,972 48.000 77.000 35.18
CM-17 CB-17 38,585,174 157.000 72.000 633.09
CM-18F CB-18 238,396 52.000 72.000 8.96
CM-19 CB-19 1,139,427 110.000 70.000 22.65
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
18
Catch Basin Table (Culvert Inlet) 10 Year
Label Elevation Elevation Flow (Total In

(Ground) (Invert) Maximum)
(ft) (ft) (cfs)
CB-1 5,025.00 5,024.00 3.60
CB-2 5,075.00 5,074.00 7.01
CB-3 5,200.00 5,199.00 8.42
CB-4 5,300.00 5,299.00 4.87
CB-5 5,350.00 5,349.00 26.38
CB-6 5,375.00 5,374.00 6.93
CB-7 5,415.00 5,414.00 32.51
CB-8 5,625.00 5,624.00 8.42
CB-9 5,630.00 5,629.00 20.56
CB-10 5,750.00 5,749.00 51.26
CB-11 5,900.00 5,899.00 131.87
CB-12 6,075.00 6,074.00 27.09
CB-13 6,100.00 6,099.00 43.95
CB-14 5,950.00 5,949.00 63.67
CB-15 5,775.00 5,774.00 67.51
CB-16 5,632.00 5,631.00 26.19
CB-17 5,500.00 5,499.00 316.63
CB-18 5,425.00 5,424.00 16.35
CB-19 5,200.00 5,199.00 25.89
Future Inlet 1 4,975.00 4,974.00 53.17
Future Inlet 2 5,100.00 5,099.00 30.42
Future Inlet 3 5,710.00 5,709.00 33.56
Future Inlet 4 5,625.00 5,624.00 32.95
Future Inlet 5 5,460.00 5,459.00 52.24
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
19

(ft) (ft) (cfs)
CB-1 5,025.00 5,024.00 6.82
CB-2 5,075.00 5,074.00 12.01
CB-3 5,200.00 5,199.00 12.41
CB-4 5,300.00 5,299.00 7.65
CB-5 5,350.00 5,349.00 38.22
CB-6 5,375.00 5,374.00 11.12
CB-7 5,415.00 5,414.00 48.44
CB-8 5,625.00 5,624.00 15.56
CB-9 5,630.00 5,629.00 30.99
CB-10 5,750.00 5,749.00 73.43
CB-11 5,900.00 5,899.00 189.17
CB-12 6,075.00 6,074.00 38.57
CB-13 6,100.00 6,099.00 59.40
CB-14 5,950.00 5,949.00 78.00
CB-15 5,775.00 5,774.00 86.98
CB-16 5,632.00 5,631.00 34.96
CB-17 5,500.00 5,499.00 431.48
CB-18 5,425.00 5,424.00 22.36
CB-19 5,200.00 5,199.00 31.77
Future Inlet 1 4,975.00 4,974.00 78.71
Future Inlet 2 5,100.00 5,099.00 45.61
Future Inlet 3 5,710.00 5,709.00 43.49
Future Inlet 4 5,625.00 5,624.00 43.68
Future Inlet 5 5,460.00 5,459.00 67.32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
20

(ft) (ft) (cfs)
CB-1 5,025.00 5,024.00 10.26
CB-2 5,075.00 5,074.00 17.08
CB-3 5,200.00 5,199.00 15.98
CB-4 5,300.00 5,299.00 10.28
CB-5 5,350.00 5,349.00 48.59
CB-6 5,375.00 5,374.00 15.11
CB-7 5,415.00 5,414.00 62.21
CB-8 5,625.00 5,624.00 20.28
CB-9 5,630.00 5,629.00 39.16
CB-10 5,750.00 5,749.00 92.60
CB-11 5,900.00 5,899.00 238.70
CB-12 6,075.00 6,074.00 47.79
CB-13 6,100.00 6,099.00 72.46
CB-14 5,950.00 5,949.00 89.91
CB-15 5,775.00 5,774.00 103.21
CB-16 5,632.00 5,631.00 42.46
CB-17 5,500.00 5,499.00 528.99
CB-18 5,425.00 5,424.00 26.83
CB-19 5,200.00 5,199.00 35.35
Future Inlet 1 4,975.00 4,974.00 100.96
Future Inlet 2 5,100.00 5,099.00 59.29
Future Inlet 3 5,710.00 5,709.00 51.75
Future Inlet 4 5,625.00 5,624.00 52.81
Future Inlet 5 5,460.00 5,459.00 80.13
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
21

(ft) (ft) (cfs)
CB-1 5,025.00 5,024.00 14.33
CB-2 5,075.00 5,074.00 22.21
CB-3 5,200.00 5,199.00 20.05
CB-4 5,300.00 5,299.00 13.41
CB-5 5,350.00 5,349.00 60.19
CB-6 5,375.00 5,374.00 19.72
CB-7 5,415.00 5,414.00 77.92
CB-8 5,625.00 5,624.00 25.21
CB-9 5,630.00 5,629.00 48.13
CB-10 5,750.00 5,749.00 113.79
CB-11 5,900.00 5,899.00 293.53
CB-12 6,075.00 6,074.00 57.90
CB-13 6,100.00 6,099.00 86.74
CB-14 5,950.00 5,949.00 102.75
CB-15 5,775.00 5,774.00 120.74
CB-16 5,632.00 5,631.00 50.75
CB-17 5,500.00 5,499.00 635.53
CB-18 5,425.00 5,424.00 31.72
CB-19 5,200.00 5,199.00 39.34
Future Inlet 1 4,975.00 4,974.00 126.02
Future Inlet 2 5,100.00 5,099.00 74.83
Future Inlet 3 5,710.00 5,709.00 60.71
Future Inlet 4 5,625.00 5,624.00 62.91
Future Inlet 5 5,460.00 5,459.00 94.14
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
22
Proposed Channel Table: 10 Year
Label Diameter Rise Span Length Slope Capacity (Full Flow

(in) (ft) (ft) (Scaled) (Calculated) Flow) (Maximum)
(ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (cfs)
Channel 1 1.5 3.0 591.1 0.085 21.24 0.50
Channel 2 1.5 3.0 582.6 0.086 49.36 1.25
Channel 3 1.5 3.0 336.0 0.074 45.96 5.93
Channel 4 1.5 3.0 965.0 0.104 54.24 2.05
Channel 5 1.5 3.0 1,215.6 0.082 48.33 0.57
Channel 6 1.5 3.0 384.6 0.130 60.76 4.35
Channel 7 1.5 3.0 352.1 0.071 44.90 0.74
Channel 8 1.5 3.0 472.2 0.085 49.04 5.27
Channel 9 1.5 3.0 1,776.2 0.118 57.94 2.50
Channel 10 1.5 3.0 330.0 0.015 20.74 7.79
Channel 11 1.5 3.0 1,176.1 0.102 53.82 14.40
Channel 12 1.5 3.0 1,564.7 0.096 52.17 29.86
Channel 13 1.5 3.0 1,622.3 0.108 55.34 8.68
Channel 14 1.5 3.0 337.0 0.074 45.89 12.57
Channel 15 1.5 3.0 1,612.3 0.093 51.39 17.44
Channel 16 1.5 3.0 1,666.0 0.105 54.61 22.47
Channel 17 1.5 3.0 800.7 0.081 48.01 18.09
Channel 18 1.5 3.0 655.4 0.119 58.13 8.34
Channel 19 1.5 3.0 409.7 0.017 22.02 2.34
Channel 20 1.5 3.0 987.8 0.127 59.94 10.80
Channel 21 1.5 3.0 929.2 0.043 34.96 12.05
Channel 22 1.5 3.0 484.5 0.072 45.29 12.98
Channel 23 1.5 3.0 2,638.2 0.085 49.21 16.35
Culvert 1 12.0 61.9 0.162 14.32 3.06
Culvert 2 18.0 67.3 0.149 40.50 5.72
Culvert 3 12.0 50.5 0.198 15.86 6.37
Culvert 4 18.0 41.0 0.244 51.89 4.22
Culvert 5 36.0 53.0 0.189 289.77 22.03
Culvert 6 18.0 33.2 0.302 57.68 5.97
Culvert 7 36.0 64.9 0.154 261.75 27.03
Culvert 8 12.0 49.8 0.201 15.96 6.28
Culvert 9 12.0 81.6 0.123 12.47 14.04
Culvert 10 24.0 69.8 0.143 85.61 36.78
Culvert 11 48.0 106.1 0.094 440.89 60.28
Culvert 12 18.0 82.0 0.122 36.69 18.32
Culvert 13 24.0 98.9 0.101 71.95 31.39
Culvert 14 18.0 59.2 0.169 43.18 33.87
Culvert 15 24.0 64.8 0.154 88.85 44.46
Culvert 16 18.0 48.5 0.351 62.19 23.54
Culvert 17 120.0 84.2 0.119 5,699.52 113.29
Culvert 19 24.0 63.4 0.158 89.83 25.89
Future Culvert 1 24.0 111.6 0.090 67.71 33.88
Future Culvert 2 24.0 58.0 0.172 93.93 24.45
Future Culvert 3 24.0 63.8 0.157 89.56 25.02
Future Culvert 4 24.0 113.7 0.088 67.07 22.10
Future Culvert 5 24.0 66.7 0.150 87.59 39.31
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
23

Channel 1 1.5 3.0 591.1 0.085 21.24 0.97
Channel 2 1.5 3.0 582.6 0.086 49.36 2.52
Channel 3 1.5 3.0 336.0 0.074 45.96 10.13
Channel 4 1.5 3.0 965.0 0.104 54.24 3.49
Channel 5 1.5 3.0 1,215.6 0.082 48.33 1.05
Channel 6 1.5 3.0 384.6 0.130 60.76 6.94
Channel 7 1.5 3.0 352.1 0.071 44.90 1.42
Channel 8 1.5 3.0 472.2 0.085 49.04 8.81
Channel 9 1.5 3.0 1,776.2 0.118 57.94 5.58
Channel 10 1.5 3.0 330.0 0.015 20.74 14.39
Channel 11 1.5 3.0 1,176.1 0.102 53.82 21.89
Channel 12 1.5 3.0 1,564.7 0.096 52.17 42.88
Channel 13 1.5 3.0 1,622.3 0.108 55.34 13.99
Channel 14 1.5 3.0 337.0 0.074 45.89 17.95
Channel 15 1.5 3.0 1,612.3 0.093 51.39 17.44
Channel 16 1.5 3.0 1,666.0 0.105 54.61 27.55
Channel 17 1.5 3.0 800.7 0.081 48.01 23.33
Channel 18 1.5 3.0 655.4 0.119 58.13 11.67
Channel 19 1.5 3.0 409.7 0.017 22.02 3.63
Channel 20 1.5 3.0 987.8 0.127 59.94 15.50
Channel 21 1.5 3.0 929.2 0.043 34.96 12.05
Channel 22 1.5 3.0 484.5 0.072 45.29 17.48
Channel 23 1.5 3.0 2,638.2 0.085 49.21 16.70
Culvert 1 12.0 61.9 0.162 14.32 5.83
Culvert 2 18.0 67.3 0.149 40.50 9.46
Culvert 3 12.0 50.5 0.198 15.86 8.96
Culvert 4 18.0 41.0 0.244 51.89 6.53
Culvert 5 36.0 53.0 0.189 289.77 31.30
Culvert 6 18.0 33.2 0.302 57.68 9.55
Culvert 7 36.0 64.9 0.154 261.75 39.60
Culvert 8 12.0 49.8 0.201 15.96 10.58
Culvert 9 12.0 81.6 0.123 12.47 14.96
Culvert 10 24.0 69.8 0.143 85.61 42.84
Culvert 11 48.0 106.1 0.094 440.89 60.28
Culvert 12 18.0 82.0 0.122 36.69 24.48
Culvert 13 24.0 98.9 0.101 71.95 36.00
Culvert 14 18.0 59.2 0.169 43.18 33.87
Culvert 15 24.0 64.8 0.154 88.85 44.46
Culvert 16 18.0 48.5 0.351 62.19 31.02
Culvert 17 120.0 84.2 0.119 5,699.52 113.29
Culvert 19 24.0 63.4 0.158 89.83 31.77
Future Culvert 1 24.0 111.6 0.090 67.71 33.88
Future Culvert 2 24.0 58.0 0.172 93.93 35.48
Future Culvert 3 24.0 63.8 0.157 89.56 31.64
Future Culvert 4 24.0 113.7 0.088 67.07 28.14
Future Culvert 5 24.0 66.7 0.150 87.59 43.83
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
24

Channel 1 1.5 3.0 591.1 0.085 21.24 1.47
Channel 2 1.5 3.0 582.6 0.086 49.36 3.99
Channel 3 1.5 3.0 336.0 0.074 45.96 14.44
Channel 4 1.5 3.0 965.0 0.104 54.24 4.97
Channel 5 1.5 3.0 1,215.6 0.082 48.33 1.55
Channel 6 1.5 3.0 384.6 0.130 60.76 9.42
Channel 7 1.5 3.0 352.1 0.071 44.90 2.14
Channel 8 1.5 3.0 472.2 0.085 49.04 12.09
Channel 9 1.5 3.0 1,776.2 0.118 57.94 7.39
Channel 10 1.5 3.0 330.0 0.015 20.74 18.82
Channel 11 1.5 3.0 1,176.1 0.102 53.82 27.64
Channel 12 1.5 3.0 1,564.7 0.096 52.17 54.15
Channel 13 1.5 3.0 1,622.3 0.108 55.34 18.84
Channel 14 1.5 3.0 337.0 0.074 45.89 21.91
Channel 15 1.5 3.0 1,612.3 0.093 51.39 17.44
Channel 16 1.5 3.0 1,666.0 0.105 54.61 31.77
Channel 17 1.5 3.0 800.7 0.081 48.01 27.71
Channel 18 1.5 3.0 655.4 0.119 58.13 14.69
Channel 19 1.5 3.0 409.7 0.017 22.02 4.90
Channel 20 1.5 3.0 987.8 0.127 59.94 19.81
Channel 21 1.5 3.0 929.2 0.043 34.96 12.05
Channel 22 1.5 3.0 484.5 0.072 45.29 20.81
Channel 23 1.5 3.0 2,638.2 0.085 49.21 16.70
Culvert 1 12.0 61.9 0.162 14.32 8.77
Culvert 2 18.0 67.3 0.149 40.50 13.07
Culvert 3 12.0 50.5 0.198 15.86 11.04
Culvert 4 18.0 41.0 0.244 51.89 8.66
Culvert 5 36.0 53.0 0.189 289.77 39.20
Culvert 6 18.0 33.2 0.302 57.68 12.81
Culvert 7 36.0 64.9 0.154 261.75 50.07
Culvert 8 12.0 49.8 0.201 15.96 13.02
Culvert 9 12.0 81.6 0.123 12.47 15.11
Culvert 10 24.0 69.8 0.143 85.61 42.84
Culvert 11 48.0 106.1 0.094 440.89 60.28
Culvert 12 18.0 82.0 0.122 36.69 28.77
Culvert 13 24.0 98.9 0.101 71.95 36.00
Culvert 14 18.0 59.2 0.169 43.18 33.87
Culvert 15 24.0 64.8 0.154 88.85 44.46
Culvert 16 18.0 48.5 0.351 62.19 37.18
Culvert 17 120.0 84.2 0.119 5,699.52 113.29
Culvert 19 24.0 63.4 0.158 89.83 35.35
Future Culvert 1 24.0 111.6 0.090 67.71 33.88
Future Culvert 2 24.0 58.0 0.172 93.93 44.82
Future Culvert 3 24.0 63.8 0.157 89.56 36.93
Future Culvert 4 24.0 113.7 0.088 67.07 32.95
Future Culvert 5 24.0 66.7 0.150 87.59 43.83
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
25

Channel 1 1.5 3.0 591.1 0.085 21.24 2.53
Channel 2 1.5 3.0 582.6 0.086 49.36 5.65
Channel 3 1.5 3.0 336.0 0.074 45.96 18.62
Channel 4 1.5 3.0 965.0 0.104 54.24 6.92
Channel 5 1.5 3.0 1,215.6 0.082 48.33 2.19
Channel 6 1.5 3.0 384.6 0.130 60.76 12.35
Channel 7 1.5 3.0 352.1 0.071 44.90 3.06
Channel 8 1.5 3.0 472.2 0.085 49.04 16.19
Channel 9 1.5 3.0 1,776.2 0.118 57.94 10.32
Channel 10 1.5 3.0 330.0 0.015 20.74 23.40
Channel 11 1.5 3.0 1,176.1 0.102 53.82 33.97
Channel 12 1.5 3.0 1,564.7 0.096 52.17 66.58
Channel 13 1.5 3.0 1,622.3 0.108 55.34 22.85
Channel 14 1.5 3.0 337.0 0.074 45.89 26.23
Channel 15 1.5 3.0 1,612.3 0.093 51.39 17.44
Channel 16 1.5 3.0 1,666.0 0.105 54.61 36.32
Channel 17 1.5 3.0 800.7 0.081 48.01 32.44
Channel 18 1.5 3.0 655.4 0.119 58.13 18.17
Channel 19 1.5 3.0 409.7 0.017 22.02 6.55
Channel 20 1.5 3.0 987.8 0.127 59.94 23.76
Channel 21 1.5 3.0 929.2 0.043 34.96 12.05
Channel 22 1.5 3.0 484.5 0.072 45.29 24.46
Channel 23 1.5 3.0 2,638.2 0.085 49.21 16.70
Culvert 1 12.0 61.9 0.162 14.32 11.75
Culvert 2 18.0 67.3 0.149 40.50 16.51
Culvert 3 12.0 50.5 0.198 15.86 13.14
Culvert 4 18.0 41.0 0.244 51.89 11.13
Culvert 5 36.0 53.0 0.189 289.77 47.89
Culvert 6 18.0 33.2 0.302 57.68 16.51
Culvert 7 36.0 64.9 0.154 261.75 61.65
Culvert 8 12.0 49.8 0.201 15.96 15.20
Culvert 9 12.0 81.6 0.123 12.47 15.08
Culvert 10 24.0 69.8 0.143 85.61 42.84
Culvert 11 48.0 106.1 0.094 440.89 60.28
Culvert 12 18.0 82.0 0.122 36.69 28.77
Culvert 13 24.0 98.9 0.101 71.95 36.00
Culvert 14 18.0 59.2 0.169 43.18 33.87
Culvert 15 24.0 64.8 0.154 88.85 44.46
Culvert 16 18.0 48.5 0.351 62.19 43.75
Culvert 17 120.0 84.2 0.119 5,699.52 113.29
Culvert 19 24.0 63.4 0.158 89.83 39.34
Future Culvert 1 24.0 111.6 0.090 67.71 33.88
Future Culvert 2 24.0 58.0 0.172 93.93 47.00
Future Culvert 3 24.0 63.8 0.157 89.56 42.40
Future Culvert 4 24.0 113.7 0.088 67.07 33.56
Future Culvert 5 24.0 66.7 0.150 87.59 43.83
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
26
Section IV
Pavement Analysis
PAVEMENT ANALYSIS

Murray, Utah 84107
801-743-1300
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 16 and 17, 2018, Talisman Civil Consultants (TCC) completed a survey of the current
pavement conditions for the North Ogden Canyon Road connecting Ogden to Eden, Utah. This
report describes our Methodology, Pavement Findings, Pavement Recommendations,
Maintenance Costs, and Associated Safety Factors.
II. METHODOLOGY
The basic methodology of the program consists of the following steps:
1. Survey roadway to identify specific sections of road with similar defects or

distresses within each section of pavement. Identify surface defects within each
section of paved roadway. Descriptions of pavement defects or distresses are
included in Appendix A.
2. Using the Asphalt Pavement Condition Rating Form to rate each defect found,
add the rating scores and subtract the sum of defects from 100 to establish
condition rating for each section of pavement surveyed. The survey form selected
for this program was based on a simplified Asphalt Pavement Rating Form
produced by the Asphalt Institute. Asphalt Pavement Condition Rating Forms are
located in Appendix B.
3. Using general distress types, typical causes and solutions to categorize each
pavement condition into a rating system. Field identified pavement distresses are
assigned numerical values based on extent and severity.
4. Prioritizing pavement rehabilitation is based on overall rating, maintenance cost,
and safety of public.
Pavement Condition Categories
TCC has adopted a numerical scale that rates pavement from 100 (best condition) to 0 (worst
condition). A pavement with a rating of 100 will be newly placed asphalt and a pavement with a
rating of 0 will be an asphalt road with very little or no binder content, or essentially gravel.
Pavements conditions are categorized into 5 different conditions; excellent, very good, good,
poor to fair and rebuild condition. We have listed suggested rehabilitation techniques for each
pavement condition category:
1. Excellent Condition (90-100) – Pavements in this category are prime candidates

for crack sealing. Pavements which rated in the 90’s will only have a few minor
cracks on the surface.
2. Very Good Condition (80-89) – Pavements in this category are good candidates
for crack sealing and seal coat. There could even be a need for some minor
patching.
1
3. Good Condition (60-79) – Pavements in this category are good candidates for
slurry seal (Type II). In this category, it is possible that some areas will need
minor patchwork with crack sealing prior to application of the slurry seal.
4. Poor to Fair Condition (40-59) – Pavements in this category are good candidates
for milling, tack coat and asphalt overlay. Pavements that score between 40-59
will have major raveling, block cracking, depressions, poor drainage, and
bumps/sags.
5. Rebuild Condition (0-39) – Pavements in this category have deteriorated to the

point where replacement of pavement and base are required.
Table 1
Common Causes for Pavement Deterioration
CAUSES
Improper
DISTRESS* PROBABLE
Structural/ Durability/ Moisture/ Construction
TYPE SOLUTION
Load Climate Drainage Procedures
Transverse Cracking X X Crack Seal

Longitudinal Cracking X X Crack Seal
Alligator cracking X X Deep patching
Shrinkage cracks X Crack seal
Rutting X X Deep patching
Corrugations X X Skin patching
Raveling X X Seal Coat
Shoving or Pushing X Deep patching
Pot holes X X X Deep patching

Excess Asphalt X Surfacing
Polished aggregate X Slurry seal
Deficient Drainage X X X Roadside Re-Grading
2
III. PAVEMENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overview
During the pavement evaluation, TCC identified and rated 26 roadway sections. The pavement
management approach recommended for North Ogden Canyon Road has two objectives. First, to
cost effectively rehabilitate facilities which fall below acceptable condition ratings. Second, to
rate each section of road with a low, medium or high risk of safety to determine the priority of
projects for funding.
The most cost-effective approach is to maintain facilities at or above routine maintenance levels.
The cost will be 3 to 4 times less than rehabilitating facilities which slip into the overlay/patch or
reconstruction levels. Appendix C tabulates the Facility Maintenance costs based on Condition
Rating and Recommend Maintenance Strategy.
Pavement Findings and Recommendations
Maintenance strategies vary from area to area because each pavement section analyzed has its
own unique distresses and pavement uses. The following table summarizes the condition rating
score and maintenance strategy recommended for each section of pavement that was surveyed.
See Appendix D Survey Maps for the location and classification of all pavement areas analyzed.
Table 2
Road Section Ratings and Maintenance Strategy Recommendations
Road Road Section Current
Section Coordinates Rating Maintenance Strategy
From: N: 3,640,041.253
E: 1,519,799.800
To: N: 3,637,982.436 Slurry Seal/Patchwork
1 E: 1,522,610.456 72
From: N: 3,637,982.436
E: 1,522,610.456
2 E: 1,523,536.835 63
From: N: 3,637,821.573
E: 1,523,536.835
3 E: 1,524,082.390 73
From: N: 3,637,927.122
E: 1,524,082.39
4 E: 1,524,812.994 66
From: N: 3,637,671.073
E: 1,524,812.994
5 E: 1,526,227.538 73
From: N: 3,637,788.875
E: 1,526,227.538
6 To: N: 3,637,881.442 73 Slurry Seal/Patchwork
3
E: 1,526,375.778
From: N: 3,637,881.442
E: 1,526,375.778
7 E: 1,526,910.470 70
From: N: 3,638,016.621
E: 1,526,910.470
To: N: 3,638,700.298 Mill/Overlay
8 E: 1,527,803.773 56
From: N: 3,638,700.298
E: 1,527,803.773
9 E: 1,527,864.774 64
From: N: 3,638,771.426
E: 1,527,864.774
10 E: 1,528,106.449 48
From: N: 3,639,314.419
E: 1,528,106.449
To: N: 3,639,845.817 Crack Seal
11 E: 1,528,817.029 95
From: N: 3,639,845.817
E: 1,528,817.029
12 E: 1,528,855.106 59
From: N: 3,639,903.449
E: 1,528,855.106
13 E: 1,528,946.513 63
From: N: 3,639,985.490
E: 1,528,946.513
14 E: 1,529,325.917 59
From: N: 3,640,351.358
E: 1,529,325.917
15 E: 1,532,379.578 59
From: N: 3,641,130.549
E: 1,532,379.578
16 E: 1,533,686.500 56
From: N: 3,642,488.705
E: 1,533,686.500
To: N: 3,642,615,446 Mill/Overlay
17 E: 1,533,633.630 49
From: N: 3,642,615.446
E: 1,533,633.630
18 E: 1,533,539.920 50
From: N: 3,642,992.660
E: 1,533.539.920
19 E: 1,533,149.221 50
From: N: 3,644,428.892
20 E: 1,533,149.221 30
4
To: N: 3,644,777.730 Reconstruction

E: 1,533,035.716
From: N: 3,644,777.730
E: 1,533,035.716
To: N: 3,645,845.555 Reconstruction
21 E: 1,532,817.526 30
From: N: 3,645,845.555
E: 1,532,817.526
22 E: 1,534,647.670 50
From: N: 3,645,918.261
E: 1,534,647.670
23 E: 1,535,050.974 59
From: N: 3,646,078.252
E: 1,535,050.974
24 E: 1,535,893.857 51
From: N: 3,645,655.169
E: 1,535,893.857
25 E: 1,536,399.677 46
From: N: 3,645,456.569
E: 1,536,399.677
26 E: 1,536,468.533 64
Additional Recommendations
1. Where small areas of severe alligator cracking or drainage depression occur, we recommend
that the asphalt be saw cut, removed and patched before the overall recommended treatment
is applied to the rest of the asphalt surface. This strategy will reduce cost and extend the
useful life of the pavement. When considering this strategy, keep in mind replacement will
not be too far in the future and costs associated with replacement should be budgeted when
possible.
2. We recommend that a tack coat be applied between any existing and proposed asphalt
surfaces. Tack coating is critical to ensuring a strong bond forms between existing asphalt
and new asphalt. Without tack coat, new asphalt has the tendency to shrink and pull away
from existing asphalt causing cracking and eventually failure along the joint.
3. For catch basins that do not already have concrete collars, we recommend that circular
concrete collars be installed around them. It is sometimes difficult to achieve optimum
compaction around catch basins and other similar improvements therefore by using concrete
collars to facilitate load distribution around the structure and into the sub-grade.
5
III. CONCLUSION
The sections surveyed along the North Ogden Divide scored an average rating of 58.7 out of 100
putting the entire road in poor or fair condition with two sections scoring in the Rebuild
Condition category and only one section scoring in the Excellent Conditions category.
The poorest pavement sections were observed on the easterly sections of the roadway heading
into Liberty with much of the road needing immediate attention. Due to funding limitations
replacement and rebuild of the entire road is not feasible. TCC recommends using the priorities
established by this report to plan and budget for smaller pavement projects over the next few
years.
6
Appendix A
Definitions of Distress Types
7
Definitions of Distress Types
Transverse A crack that follows a course approximately at right angles to the

Crack pavement centerline. This frequently is caused by movement in the pavement
beneath the asphalt pavement layer (reflection cracking). It can also result from
stresses induced by low temperature contraction of the pavement.
Longitudinal A crack that follows a course approximately parallel to the pavement

Crack centerline. This usually results from a weak joint between paving lanes. These
cracks can also result from earth movements, particularly on embankments. Two
closely spaced longitudinal cracks in the wheel path usually indicate bending stress
induced by rutting. Longitudinal cracks can also occur as a result of movement in
the pavement beneath the asphalt pavement layer (reflection cracking or stripping).
Alligator Series of interconnected cracks caused by fatigue failure of the HMA

Cracking (Hot Mix Asphalt) surface (or stabilized base) under repeated traffic loading. In
thin pavement, cracking initiates at the bottom of the HMA layer where the tensile
stress is the highest then propagates to the surface as one or more longitudinal
cracks. This is commonly referred to as "bottom-up" or "classical" fatigue
cracking. In thick pavements, the cracks most likely initiate from the top in areas
of high localized tensile stresses resulting from tire-pavement interaction and
asphalt binder aging (top-down cracking). After repeated loading, the longitudinal
cracks connect forming many-sided sharp-angled pieces that develop into a pattern
resembling the back of an alligator.
Shrinkage Occurs in areas subjected to repeated traffic loadings (wheel paths). Can
Cracks be a series of interconnected cracks in early stages of development.
Develops into many-sided, sharp-angled pieces, usually less than 0.3 meters (m) on
the longest side, characteristically with a chicken wire/alligator pattern, in later
stages. Must have a quantifiable area.
Rutting A rut is a longitudinal surface depression in the wheel path. It may have associated
transverse displacement.
Corrugations A form of plastic movement typified by ripples (corrugation) or an abrupt wave

(shoving) across the pavement surface. The distortion is perpendicular to the traffic
direction. Usually occurs at points where traffic starts and stops (corrugation) or
areas where HMA abuts a rigid object (shoving).
Raveling Wearing away of the pavement surface caused by the dislodging of aggregate
particles and loss of asphalt binder. Raveling ranges from loss of fines to loss of
some coarse aggregate and ultimately to a very rough and pitted surface with
obvious loss of aggregate.
Shoving/ Shoving or pushing is a longitudinal displacement of a localized area of
8
Pushing the pavement surface. It is generally caused by stopping or accelerating vehicle,

and is usually located on hills or curves, or at intersections. It also may have
associated vertical displacement.
Pot Holes Bowl-shaped holes of various sizes in the pavement surface. Minimum plan
dimension is 150 mm.
Excess Excess bituminous binder occurring on the pavement surface, usually

Asphalt/ found in the wheel paths. May range from a surface discolored relative to
Bleeding the remainder of the pavement, to a surface that is losing surface texture because of
excess asphalt possible with a shiny, glass-like, reflective surface that may be tacky
to the touch.
Polished
Aggregate Surface binder worn away to expose course aggregate.
Swell Swell is characterized by an upward bulge in the pavement’s surface. A swell may
occur sharply over a small area or as a longer, gradual wave. Either type of swell
can be accompanied by surface cracking. A swell is usually cased by frost action
in the subgrade or by swelling soil, but small swell can also occur on the surface of
an asphalt overlay over PCC (Portland Cement Concrete) as a result of a blowup in
the PCC slab.
Depressions Localized pavement surface areas with slightly lower elevations than the
surrounding pavement. Depressions are very noticeable after a rain when they fill
with water.
Block Interconnected cracks that divide the pavement up into rectangular

pieces. Cracking Blocks range in size from approximately 0.1 m2 (1 ft2) to 9 m2 (100 ft2).
Larger blocks are generally classified as longitudinal and transverse
cracking. Block cracking normally occurs over a large portion of pavement area
but sometimes will occur only in non-traffic areas.
Weathering/ Oxidation (weathering) is the hardening and aging of the asphalt binder. Oxidation
The surface binder has worn away to expose coarse aggregate. This
condition will normally be found on plant mix pavement. Weathering usually
covers the entire surface.
9
Appendix B
Asphalt Pavement Ratings Forms
10
ASPHALT PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING

DESCRIPTION NORTH OGDEN DIVIDE LENGTH OF PROJECT 4.8 MILES
SURVEY DATE JULY 16, 2018 WIDTH OF PROJECT 28 Feet
GPS LOCATION: FROM : N: 3,640,041.253 E: 1,519,799.800
TO : N: 3,637,982.436 E: 1,522,610.456
DEFECTS RATING
Transverse Cracks ………………………………………..……… 0–5 5
Longitudinal Cracking …………………………………………… 0–5 2
Alligator Cracks ………………..………………………………… 0 – 10 5
Shrinkage Cracks…………….…………………………………… 0–5 0
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 1
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 0
Shoving or Pushing …………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 3
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0
Polished Aggregate ……………………………………………… 0–5 0
Deficient Drainage ………………………………..……………… 0 – 10 1
Overall Riding Quality (0 is excellent;

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 6
Sum of Defects 28
Condition Rating = 72
11

GPS LOCATION: FROM: N: 3,637,982.436 E: 1,522,610.456
TO: N: 3,637,821.573 E: 1,523,536.835
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 5
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 4
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 0
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 5

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 7
Sum of Defects 37
12

TO: N: 3,637,927.122 E: 1,524,082.390
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 0
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 4
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 0
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 4
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 5

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 4
Sum of Defects 27
13

SURVEY DATE JULY 16, 2018 WIDTH OF PROJECT 26 feet
TO: N: 3,637,671.073 E: 1,524,819.994
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 5
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 2
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 4
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 4

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 7
Sum of Defects 34
14

SURVEY DATE JULU 16, 2018 WIDTH OF PROJECT 26feet
TO: N: 3,637,788.875 E: 1,526,227.538
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 2
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 3
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 0
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 4

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 5
Sum of Defects 27
15

TO: N; 3,637,881.442 E: 1,526,375.778
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 0
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 3
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 0
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 2

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 5
Sum of Defects 27
16

GPS LOCATION: FROM: N; 3,637,881.442 E: 1,526,375.778
TO: N; 3,638,016.621 E: 1,526,910.470
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 3
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 0
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 3
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 4

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 5
Sum of Defects 30
17

GPS LOCATION: FROM: N; 3,638,016.621 E: 1,526,910.470
TO: N: 3,638,700.298 E: 1,527,803.773
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 4
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 3
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 3
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 4

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 8
Sum of Defects 44
18

TO: N: 3,638,771.426 E:1,527,864.774
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 0
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 4
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 0
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 5

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 6
Sum of Defects 36
19

TO: N: 3,639,314.419 E: 1,528,106.449
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 0
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 0
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 6
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 9

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 7
Sum of Defects 52
20

TO: N: 3,639,845.817 E: 1,528,817.029
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 0
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 1
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 0
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 1

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 0
Sum of Defects 5
21

TO: N: 3,639,903.499 E: 1,528,855.106
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 5
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 4
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 7
Sum of Defects 41
22

TO: N: 3,639,985.490 E: 1,528,946.513
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 4
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 3
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 7
Sum of Defects 37
23

TO: N: 3,640,351.358 E: 1,529,325.917
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 0
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 3
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 8
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 7
Sum of Defects 41
24

TO: N: 3,641,130.549 E: 1,532,379.578
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 6
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 7
Sum of Defects 41
25

TO: N: 3,642,488.705 E: 1,533,686.500
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 7
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 4
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 7
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 4

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 7
Sum of Defects 44
26

TO: N: 3,642,615.446 E: 1,5333,633.630
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 6
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 0
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 6
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 8
Sum of Defects 51
27

TO: N: 3,642,992.660 E: 1,533,539.920
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 5
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 4
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 7
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 7
Sum of Defects 50
28

TO: N: 3,644,428.892 E: 1,533,149.221
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 5
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 4
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 7
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 7
Sum of Defects 50
29

TO: N: 3,644,777.730 E: 1,533,035.716
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 6
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 4
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 8
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 4

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 9
Sum of Defects 70
30

TO: N: 3,645,845.555 E: 1,532,817.526
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 6
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 4
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 7
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 5

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 9
Sum of Defects 70
31

TO: N: 3,645,918.261 E: 1,534,647.670
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 4
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 3
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 8
Sum of Defects 50
32

TO: N: 3,646,078.252 E: 1,535,050.974
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 3
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 0
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 5
Sum of Defects 41
33

TO: N: 3,645,655.169 E: 1,535,893.857
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 4
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 2
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 9
Sum of Defects 49
34

TO: N: 3,645,456.569 E: 1,536,399.677
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 4
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 4
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 5
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 6
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 9
Sum of Defects 54
35

TO: N: 3.645.439.144 E: 1,536,468.533
DEFECTS RATING
Rutting ..……………………………………………...…………… 0 – 10 2
Corrugations ……………………………………………………… 0–5 4
Raveling …...……………………………………………………… 0–5 1
Pot Holes ……………………………………………………….… 0 – 10 0
Excess Asphalt …………………………………………………… 0 – 10 0

10 is very poor) ………………………………………………...… 0 - 10 7
Sum of Defects 36
36
Appendix C
Condition Ratings Overview and
Maintenance Costs
37
Appendix D
Survey Maps
38
Appendix E
Definitions of Rehabilitation
Maintenance Strategies
39
Definitions of Rehabilitation Maintenance Strategies
Slurry A Slurry Seal is a cold mixed asphalt. It consists of a graded aggregate, a binder,
fines and additives. It is a hard-wearing surfacing for pavement preservation.
Slurry Seals are for sealing aged and raveled pavements, filling minor cracks,
restoring skid resistance and restoring aesthetic appeal. It may be used on
freeways, residential streets, parking lots, driveways and any area that needs the
pavement to be preserved.
Slurry Seals come in many different types. Different stone sizes give different
surface textures. Type I is fine and is for parking lots and runways. Type II is
coarser and general purpose it is used for all applications including arterial roads,
residential areas and highways. Type III is the coarsest and is used on freeways
and high-speed roads and industrial estates. Different types of aggregate will give
lighter or darker results. The famous Table Mountain black rock will give your
surfacing that new look all through its life. Slurry seals may be polymer modified
for longer wear and better resistance to traffic and cracking. This modification
includes latex rubber, crumb rubber and other polymers.
Slurry Seal protects and preserves, extending pavement life. This results in a
pavement that is better to drive on, look at and will cost less in the long run.
Generally slurry seal is 30-50% of the cost of other treatments.
Micro
Surfacing Microsurfacing is a cold mixed asphalt. It consists of a graded aggregate, a binder,
fines and additives. It is a hard-wearing surfacing for pavement preservation and
rehabilitation. It is a sort of slurry surfacing but is specialized for situations where
very quick use, rut filling or extreme conditions of heat or cold are likely.
Microsurfacing is for the more specialized slurry jobs of rut filling, restoring
surface profile, heavy traffic or where very quick use is essential. Like night work
or freeways.
Microsurfacings are all polymer modified. Different stone sizes give different
surface textures. Type I is fine and is for parking lots and runways. Type II is
general purpose it is used for all applications including arterial roads and
highways. Type III is the coarsest and is used on freeways, rut filling and high
speed roads. Special mixes are used for rut filling and some applications for very
rapid traffic.
Microsurfacings may be polymer modified for longer wear and better resistance
to traffic and cracking. This modification includes latex rubber, crumb rubber and
other polymers.
40
Microsurfacing protects and preserves, extending pavement life. This results in a

pavement that is better to drive on, look at and will cost less in the long run.
Generally microsurfacing is laid thicker than slurry seal (2 stones compared to

one) so is 30-50% more expensive.
Chip Seal Chip sealing is one of the oldest methods and most successful of road surfacing.
In many countries it is used for high volume roads. In USA it is used for
pavement preservation and rehabilitation. A chip seal is an application of a binder
in the form of an emulsion or hot spray or sometimes cutback and an application
of an aggregate as close to single size as possible. The aggregate is the running
surface of road so factors of shape, grading, stone embedment and amount of
binder are critical. Other factors are application conditions and stone cleanliness.
Chip Seals are used for restoring skid resistance, protecting a surface from aging,
restoring a running surface, eliminating dust, sealing gravel pavements. Special
binder types can be used to treat reflection cracking.
Different stone sizes give different surface textures and are used for different
traffic situations these may range from sand, 7mm (1/4 inch), 10mm (about ½
inch), 14mm (about ½ inch) 20mm (about 4/5 ) and 25mm (1inch).
Binders are selected for the type of job. Binders may be emulsified asphalt or
other material, emulsified polymer asphalt, latex modified emulsified asphalt,
rejuvenating oil modified asphalt emulsions or hot applied binders with asphalt
rubber or polymers. Seal types include, sand seals for low traffic roads and paths,
reseals for existing pavements, modified seals for cracked pavements, multiple
coat seals for heavy traffic areas or where a smoother surface is required.
Chip Sealing is a three-stage process, after the surface has been prepared by
patching, crack filling (if required), a spray of binder is applied via a computer
controlled calibrated spray unit. Then a layer of chippings is applied using a
computer controlled and calibrated self-propelled chip spreader. The final
operation is several passes from multi tyred roller. The road is usually opened to
traffic after sweeping or may be opened to slow moving traffic almost
immediately.
Chip Seals protect, preserve, and extend pavement life. This results in a pavement
that is better to drive on, look at and will cost less in the long run.
Chip Sealing is a thin layer which is economic and will provide a lower cost than
a hot mix overlay for the same purpose.
41
Seal
Coating Seal Coating is a thin asphaltic treatment used to protect pavement surfaces from
UV radiation and oxidation. Seal coat may contain asphaltic or coal tar emulsion,
fillers, sand, polymer latex, fibers and pigments, depending on the application.
Seal coats are mostly for protecting a surface from aging. They are a thin layer
and work well as void fillers. They may be used for parking lots, walkways,
driveways, and roofing in some circumstances.
Seal Coats are very fine materials. They are applied as relatively low viscosity
mixtures with water so the resulting surface is very smooth. It is not intended for
fast traffic or where skid resistance is important.
Binders are selected for the type of job. Binders may be emulsified asphalt or coal
tar, emulsified polymer asphalt, latex modified emulsified asphalt, rejuvenating
oil modified asphalt emulsions or hot applied binders with asphalt rubber fibers or
polymers. Different types of aggregate will give lighter or darker results.
Seal Coating is applied via a purpose-built unit that sprays the material behind it
and spreads it in one motion. It may also be applied by squeegee. Surface
preparation is important. The surface must be sound as cracks will reflect back in
a short time. This means crack filling and patching first. It also means killing
weeds and cleaning oil spots first. Seal Coat may be applied over hotmix, slurry
or chip seal. The surface must be cured out before application
Seal coats make a smooth and attractive surface that resists aging and protects the
valuable pavement.
Seal Coat is a thin layer it is economic and will protect the pavement below.
Fog
Sealing Fog sealing is a method that is used to lock in chips in a chip seal or to coat a new
hot mix surface to lock in fines and fill surface voids. It is not used for aged
pavements usually for this a rejuvenation spray such as Styraflex™ ERA™ is
recommended.
Fog spray is used after a chip seal is laid or hot mix is laid. It is a temporary
protection to keep surface aggregate in place.
Fog spray is usually an ss-1 or css-1 emulsion diluted. Special types exist that
have rejuvenation oils co emulsified in the system. These types of specialty
systems may be applied to aged pavements. Usually a light covering of sand or
finer aggregate is applied.
42
Emulsion is sprayed using a standard boot truck. The emulsion may or may not be
pre-diluted with water. In some applications a layer of fine sand may also be
applied.
Fog sealing will ensure early stone loss is reduced and will add life to the
pavement. In its rejuvenation forms it may be used for aged but sound pavements
where the surface is still intact. It will not repair cracks or fill potholes.
Fog sealing is an inexpensive insurance for your pavement.
Crack
Sealing When pavements fail they often fail by cracking. This can be caused by aging and
embrittlement, low temperature effects, fatigue, or movements in the base caused
by shrinkage or exiting cracks below the pavement surface. In many situations the
best way to seal the surface again is by filling the cracks with an elastomeric
asphaltic compound. Generally cracks that are 7-15mm are candidates for crack
filling. Fatigue cracks are usually an intense pattern and more suited to overall
treatments like asphalt rubber chip seals or Cape Seals.
Crack Sealing is used as a preparation treatment before another type of surfacing,

for example slurry, hot mix overlay or asphalt rubber seal.
Crack sealants may be cold or hot pour. Cold crack sealants are emulsion based
and usually latex modified. They are suitable for smaller cracks that are not very
active. Such as age cracks. Hot pour crack fillers are generally crumb rubber or
SBS modified at high concentrations (25% and 12% respectively).
These materials are highly elastomeric and stretch and recover with the movement
of the crack.
1. The cracks are routed to remove debris and any weak material.
2. The cracks are cleaned with compressed air.
3. Crack sealer is poured or injected into the crack with a spray device.
4. The surface is finished with a shoe leveler or similar device on the spray wand.
5. The surface may be sanded , especially in the case of an emulsion crack filler.
Unwashed sand or grit is suitable.
Emulsion crack fillers must be fully cured before overlaying. Crack sealing
should not be overdone and a stage will be reached where there are too many
cracks to fill and a different treatment should be considered.
Crack Sealing seals cracks preventing water getting into the pavement. Applied at
the right time, crack sealing will prevent or delay pothole formation. It should
ideally be used with some sort of final overlay. Because cracks are a function of
stress relaxation in the pavement, i.e. they can open up in places other than the
filled areas. In instances where this is happening an overall membrane treatment
is indicated.
43
Crack Sealing is the least expensive method of road maintenance.
Tack
Coat Tack is an adhesive term that relates to a sort of stickiness. A tack bond is a
surface bond created by highly mobile or highly polar material. This is NOT what
is meant by a tack coat in asphalt technology. Sometimes erroneously called a
prime coat, a tack coat is used to ensure a good bond on the next layer. It need not
be done with asphalt emulsion. In some countries cutback asphalt (asphalt
dissolved in solvents such as kerosene or diesel) are used and even penetration
grade (200pen) asphalt is sprayed neat. The residual binder is the key to the
overall tack coat performance. However, retained solvent or over application can
have severe consequences.
The tack coat is a very thin surface. The tack coat is sprayed using a tack coat
spray system. It should be an even coat over the entire substrate to be overlaid.
Thus application rate is VERY important. If the surface is absorbent or open
textured more tack coat will be required. The aim is always to get a layer of
membrane about 0.1-0.2mm thick. The hot mixture placed on top should soften
the tack coat layer allowing it to partially fill surface voids in the hot mix so when
compaction occurs it becomes partially interlocked with the hot mix layer.If used
before a microsurfacing the tack coat will not be softened but the emulsion from
the microsurfacing will wet the tack coat creating an asphalt/asphalt bond. (Note
in most cases tack coat is NOT required for microsurfacing except where the
surface is a Portland cement concrete which is highly polished). Films of asphalt
have a stability based on their cohesion versus the thickness of the layer. To act as
a good tack coat the layer must not shear sideways under traffic. This means that
thick films have relatively less cohesion. So over applied tack coats will cause a
shear plane resulting is slippage or shear cracks in the hot mix. For stiffer
materials such as asphalt rubber or polymer modified emulsions the layers may be
thicker.
Tack Coats are sometimes not required:
If the surface has been primed, i.e. it is a new construction a tack coat is not
necessary. If the surface has been stabilized with an asphalt based dust
suppressant a tack coat is not required.
Microsurfacing or slurry application on PCC pavements that are worn and

absorbent will not require a tack coat. The slurry or microsurfacing mixture can
be designed to ensure that the emulsion wets the surface of the pavement to create
the bond required. In Slurry Surfacings of all types the mixture is highly mobile at
spreading. Even under higher temperature conditions a spray of water is all that is
needed.
Tack coats are not tacky and do not really coat. They are a bridge layer
between an existing surface and a new surface course. When the new surface
44
course is a chip seal or slurry they will not be required. Where it is a hot mix
or cold mix a tack coat is critical.
Applications where tack Coats may not be needed: primed surfaces, stabilized
surfaces, chip sealed surfaces, membrane seals.
Rejuvenation
Seals When pavements get old they become brittle, this is a function of oxidation of the
binder and loss of volatiles. Bitumen is a mixture of materials from polar
asphaltenes to aliphatic oils. In between there are polar resins and aromatic and
napthenic oils. Together these other components are called maltenes. As asphalt
ages the resins are made into asphaltenes and the oils are lost or become
functionalized by oxidation. This creates an imbalance in the dispersion of the
asphalt and a colloidally unstable binder. This is also harder. Thus the flexibility
is reduced and cracks appear and potholes may form.
Before potholes can form, and when the binder is just losing the stone a
rejuvenation seal will help to restore the adhesion and life of the pavement
Enrichment of the surface and softening of brittle binder- replacing the maltenes
use rejuvenation seals to extend pavement life. They protect a surface from aging
and restore the running surface.
Some cracking can be tolerated as long as it’s not too wide or active. Styraflex
ERA™ (or comparable material) can handle transverse and longitudinal cracks
but not fatigue cracks.
Styraflex ERA™ (or comparable material) is the best material for rejuvenation
seals. This may be precisely formulated to give optimum penetration and suit the
climatic conditions that may be encountered. As rejuvenation seal materials
contain napthenic/aromatic oils excess can cause bleeding in summer or under
heavy traffic.
Rejuvenation Sealing is a multi-stage process, after the surface has been prepared
by sweeping. Then the emulsion is sprayed at 30-60C and sometimes scrubbed
into the surface with a broom to fill cracks and ensure penetration
Then a layer of crushed stone, cinders or sand is applied using a computer

controlled and calibrated self-propelled chip spreader. The final operation is
several passes from a multi tyred roller. The road is usually opened to traffic after
sweeping or may be opened to slow moving traffic almost immediately.
Rejuvenation Seals can add 2-5 years to a pavement life, it seals up cracks and
creates a new running surface that may be overlaid or slurried.
45
Rejuvenation Sealing is a thin layer it is economic and will provide a lower cost
than a re-seal with chip seal for the same purpose.
Scrub
Seals When pavements deteriorate they crack. Often crack sealing is done but
sometimes pavements can be so old and aged that crack sealing is not an option.
Scrub seals are a process by which a membrane of modified binder is pressed or
scrubbed into a cracked and aged surface. It's like an allover crack seal.
The resulting surface may be chipped, sanded and then made smooth with a slurry
or chip seal.
Cracked and aged pavements are ideal for scrub seal. Generally, highly active
cracks cannot be treated with emulsion systems; in this asphalt rubber scrub seals
applied hot are preferred.
Styraflex ERA™ (or comparable material) is the best material for scrub seals with
low activity transverse cracks like low temperature cracks seals. For larger and
active cracks AR scrub seals will be preferred. Application is similar.
Scrub Sealing is a multi-stage process, after the surface has been prepared by
sweeping. Then the binder is sprayed and scrubbed into the surface with a broom
or squeegee to fill cracks.
Then a layer of crushed stone, cinders or sand is applied using a computer

controlled and calibrated self-propelled chip spreader. The final operation is
several passes from a multi tyred roller. The road is usually opened to traffic after
sweeping or may be opened to slow moving traffic almost immediately.
Scrub Seals can make a new platform for a new surface.
Scrub Seal is less expensive than reconstruction of old streets and can be
combined with slurry for a smooth long life result.
Hot Mix
& Overlay Hot mix asphalt is the premium product for pavement rehabilitation. Hot mixed
asphalt is a mixture of graded aggregates and asphalt. It is made in a purpose built
plant and hauled to site. The material is applied hot and compacted using rollers.
The material, depending on its design and the thickness laid can form a structural
layer. This makes it ideal for patching. It also can be compacted to a smooth and
almost impermeable surface making it quiet, high skid resistance and attractive
and pleasant to drive on.
Hot mix can be used to replace existing failed areas- full depth patching, filling
potholes, full overlays to restore level or structural integrity or over petromat
(fabric, geotextile) as a crack and surfacing treatment.
46
Hot mixes vary in stone size from (25mm) 1 inch or so top size to 7mm (3/8 inch)
to sand mixes. The grading may be dense, open or gap graded with different
levels of fine fillers such as lime and fly ash. The binder may be asphalt of
various penetrations from 40 to 200 and this may be modified with crumb rubber,
polymers or other additives such as fibers. For patching and standard overlay
work a 30-90 pen binder and sense gradation is usually used.
1. The hole or area to be replaced is assessed.

2. The hole is squared by jack hammering or sawed- snap lining.
3. Damaged asphalt is removed to a dept of about 75mm (2.5 inches) long with
35-75mm of existing rock. Some base rock may be added. This will then be
compacted using a vibratory roller. The inside edge is cleaned and the area
sprayed with tack oil.
4. The Asphalt is laid in one or two passes. Usually the first 75 mm is usually
20mm (3/4 inch) top size material that is compacted with a aroller or wacker
plate. The surface is finished with a light spray of the tack coat to seal the surface.
A light sand coat may be applied if the patch is to be used immediately.
The procedure for overlay is similar.
1. The surface is prepared by sweeping and levels checked. Drainage is important

and grinding may be required.
2. The surface is sprayed with a light coat of tack emulsion.
3. The thickness to be laid is predetermined by the design and intent.
4. The hot mix is laid through a paver with a screed to a set level.
5. This is compacted by a steel roller for breakdown and rubber tired for finish.
6. The type of mix selected depends on the job. At least a 1 inch overlay is
recommended to ensure compaction adhesion and to give required life.
7. Fog Sealing is recommended.
Fabric-Petromat Overlays
Where extensive cracking has occurred a fabric overlay may be considered.

1. Clean and apply a hot tack system (AR400)
2. The petromat is laid fuzzy side down. This should be laid no closer than 3 feet
from concrete curbs.
3. A minimum of 35mm (1.5 inches) of 14mm (0.5 inch top size) Hot mix is laid
and compacted
4. The new material is sanded along the joints to prevent pick up and sealed with
fog seal.
Hot mix is the premium product and may be used for a range of applications. It is
a surfacing, a structural layer and a patching material.
47
Section V
Geotechnical Report
Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Services, Inc.
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10, South Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
Phone (801) 270-9400 ~ F: (801) 270-9401
www.igesinc.com
PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

North Ogden Canyon Road
Weber County, Utah
IGES Job No. 01821-002
October 31, 2018
Prepared for:
Weber County
Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Services, Inc.
4153 South 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84107 ~ T: (801) 270-9400 ~ F: (801) 270-9401
Prepared for:
Weber County
2380 Washington Blvd., Suite 240
Ogden, UT 84401
Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation

Weber County, Utah
IGES Job No. 01821-002
Prepared by:
__________________________
Peter E. Doumit, P.G.
Senior Geologist
11/01/2018
11/01/
/220
018
1
____
___
_______________
__
_______
_______________________
ed A.
Jared A Hawes, P.E.
niior Engineer
n
Senior Engineer, Project Manager
IGES, Inc.
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10
South Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
(801) 270-9400
October 31, 2018
Copyright 2018 IGES, Inc

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK....................................................2
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 2
1.1.1 Maintenance ............................................................................................................. 3
1.1.2 Proposed Improvements ........................................................................................... 3
2.0 PREVIOUS REPORTS AND INVESTIGATIONS .............................................4
3.0 EXISTING STRUCTURES ............................................................................ 5
4.0 FINDINGS ................................................................................................6
4.1 SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 6
4.2 SURFACE DRAINAGE ......................................................................................................... 6
4.3 GEOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 7
4.3.1 Regional Geology ...................................................................................................... 7
4.3.2 Local Geology ............................................................................................................ 8
4.4 SOIL AND ROCK MATERIALS ............................................................................................. 9
4.5 GEOHYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 9
4.6 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 10
5.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING AND INVESTIGATION ....................... 11
5.1 FIELD TESTING AND INVESTIGATION ............................................................................. 11
5.1.1 Geophysical Surveys ................................................................................................ 11
5.1.2 Subsurface Borings .................................................................................................. 11
5.1.3 Geologic Mapping (Rockfall) ................................................................................... 12
5.2 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................... 15
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................ 16
6.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................... 16
6.2 PAVEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 16
6.3 ROCKFALL ....................................................................................................................... 18
6.4 SLOPE STABILITY ............................................................................................................. 19
7.0 CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS.................................................................. 22
8.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 23
9.0 APPENDICES .......................................................................................... 25
Copyright © IGES, Inc. 2018 Page 1 of 25 October 31, 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical recommendations as needed to support
rockfall mitigation and rehabilitation of North Ogden Canyon Road, commonly referred to as the
“North Ogden Divide” or “Divide Road”. It is our understanding that North Ogden Canyon Road
experiences regular rockfall events that require subsequent clean-up, and various portions of the
road are experiencing distress due to landsliding, inappropriate subsurface materials, inadequate
drainage, age, or some combination thereof. The scope of work performed as part of this rockfall
mitigation and road rehabilitation study included conducting site reconnaissance and geologic
field mapping of rockfall hazards, a subsurface geotechnical investigation, laboratory testing and
applicable engineering analyses.
The field investigation included the mapping of geologic contacts and fracture spacing and
orientation, and the drilling of shallow borings. Sonic drilling methods were used in an effort to
retrieve sufficient representative samples of the in-situ roadway bearing soils to support
pavement design. Priority areas for rockfall evaluation and distressed pavement were identified
by Weber County Road Department (County) and Talisman Civil Consultants (TCC) personnel.
Laboratory testing included the determination of water content, Atterberg limits, and particle
size distribution (PSD). Compaction and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were performed on
the samples obtained from the Sonic boring explorations.
Engineering analyses included interpretation of the geological engineering data and laboratory
data, limit-equilibrium slope stability analyses and pavement rehabilitation design.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The majority of the North Ogden Canyon Road alignment is a 2-lane roadway with generally
narrow shoulders. The road was originally constructed before 1937 with tall, steep cut and fill
slopes on either side of the roadway as it traverses the side of the generally south-facing canyon
wall between North Ogden City and Liberty, a distance of approximately 5 miles. A Site Vicinity
Map is shown on Figure A-1 of Appendix A. The roadway alignment includes relatively steep road
grades (up to 20 percent) and small-radius turns. Retaining walls with Keystone block or rock-
filled gabion baskets have been constructed in some areas, and guardrails are present in places.
It is a frequent travel route for passenger vehicles, and the road is relatively busy with maximum
average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) estimated to grow as shown in Table 1-1 (Hales, 2015). It
provides the most direct route between the Ogden and Salt Lake Valleys for Weber High School
buses and other larger vehicles pulling trailers or hauling materials.

Table 1-1 North Ogden Divide Road Projected AWDT*
Year 2020 2030 2040
Vehicles/Day 2,300 2,800 3,500
*Source: WFRC & MAG Transportation Model Documentation, 2007 Base Year Model, Version 7.0, May 2011,
Resource System Group
1.1.1 Maintenance
Weber County maintenance of the road includes rock and debris removal, snow removal and
periodic patching of damaged asphalt. The road has not had a full rehabilitation/repaving since
original construction (Weber County, 2018, personal communication). Periodic patching of
distressed pavement has prolonged the useful life of the road. Much of the perceived rockfall
hazard appears to come as a direct result of inadequate drainage controls which allow loose soils
and rock to wash into the travel lanes during heavy rainfall events. Inadequate drainage controls
are also considered to be at least one cause of road distress and slope instabilities in various parts
of the roadway.
1.1.2 Proposed Improvements
The County has no plans to widen the road; however, they are planning to take necessary steps
to improve drainage controls, repair/replace pavement and stabilize slopes as funding allows.
The intent of this report is to help prioritize the work necessary within known problem areas so
that limited available funds can be effectively allocated where they are most imminently needed.
The scope of work in this study was limited to three specific areas of the roadway identified by
Weber County and as-shown in the aerial image displayed in Figure A-2. Areas A and B are
considered rockfall hazard areas, while Area C is considered to be a slope stability hazard area.
Existing pavement is distressed or cracked along the majority of the roadway, seven areas of
pavement distress were identified by TCC and Weber County personnel for geotechnical
exploration. Proposed improvements are to be implemented in these areas on the basis of the
findings of this geotechnical study.

2.0 PREVIOUS REPORTS AND INVESTIGATIONS
No known previous geologic or geotechnical investigations are available for this project. Hales
Engineering (2015) incorporated projected traffic volumes for the North Ogden Divide into
master planning for roadways in the Ogden Valley.

3.0 EXISTING STRUCTURES
Existing structures are present in the form of the current pavement section, box and pipe
culverts, as well as historical retaining walls, guardrails and occasional pull-outs. There is a
parking area near the crest of the road which supports recreational access to the North Ogden
Divide Trailhead.
A full-scale evaluation of distressed pavement areas was not performed by IGES. Shallow boring
explorations were completed in areas as directed by TCC and Weber County personnel to observe
and retrieve samples of the in-situ roadway bearing soils (representative subgrade) for support
of our pavement evaluations.
The existing retaining walls and gabion baskets were not specifically evaluated as part of this
study, but were observed by engineers during field mapping of the site. We assume that these
walls include mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) and reinforcement (i.e. geotextiles, geogrid).
The current condition of the Keystone wall (Sta: 88+50 – 94+70) and gabion baskets (east side
Sta: 194+00 – 196+50, 197+20-199+20, 199+60-201+05) that were located in rockfall hazard
areas, is generally adequate, with the wall verticality being maintained and very few
blocks/baskets out of place. However, in some areas (Sta: 56+00-58+00) it was apparent that the
single row of baskets is suspended above grade for a small distance because supporting soils have
been washed away due to poor surface drainage conditions. These baskets directly provide edge
support to the narrow roadway and significant pavement distress was observed in the area.
Photos of the distressed gabion baskets are shown on Figure B-37.
Surface-water-control ditches on the uphill side of the roadway are generally narrow and do not
appear to have been designed with the intent of capturing rockfall. These ditches were typically
measured to be approximately six-feet wide, with their effective width reduced as a result of
previous erosion and rockfall events. It is our understanding that sand, gravel and cobbles which
regularly enter the roadway are normally pushed to the side with snow plows in order to reopen
the roadway as soon as possible after rainfall/erosion events. Attempts with plows to move
materials to areas with wider shoulders may unavoidably cut into the toe of the slope, leading to
slope instability and further deposition into the ditches. Soil and rock allowed to accumulate in
the ditches limits the amount of water those ditches can convey and further reduces their
already-limited ability to capture future rockfall.
The condition of existing culverts was not investigated by IGES for this project. It is our
understanding that TCC will perform evaluation of these facilities as part of their work scope.
It is our understanding that with the exception of telecommunications, utilities do not use the
roadway as a corridor for services between Ogden Valley and the Salt Lake Valley.
4.0 FINDINGS
4.1 SITE CONDITIONS

The roadway provides convenient access between the western part of Weber County in the Salt
Lake Valley with the more sparsely-populated Ogden Valley. It is the most direct route to Weber
High School for students living in the Ogden Valley as well as those who use it to commute in
either direction for work or recreation. It is also a popular route for cyclists, but does not have
significant width to support a bike lane in either direction. During our field investigation, we
noted several large haul trucks on the road. We anticipate that these larger vehicles (including
school buses) may have difficulty navigating tight turns. Loads from their wheels will frequently
cross the road centerline, or travel on the edges of paved lanes which may be insufficiently
constructed to support heavier loads.
The terrain in the canyon is steep with moderate to tall cuts of as much as 100 feet high above,
and steep fill/natural slopes below the roadway. It is generally well-vegetated with the exception
of cut slopes in rock or soils where regular slope erosion and dry conditions prevent growth. By
virtue of its location on the hillside, the roadway crosses several drainage channels which
intermittently transmit water downslope to the canyon floor below.
No hazardous or toxic substances were observed or are known to exist along the roadway which
would affect the overall construction of the project.
4.2 SURFACE DRAINAGE

There were no surface springs observed as part of our site reconnaissance and field mapping
effort within Areas A, B, and C. Springs feeding Liberty Spring Creek are identified by Coogan and
King (2016) at the base of the slopes below Area B. The source of water to these springs is
unknown and sufficient data to assess their impact on landslide stability was not collected in this
preliminary assessment.
Surface drainage problems do exist in several areas which are being studied for possible
mitigation by TCC. From a safety and maintenance perspective, erosion of slopes during large
rainfall events and snowmelt is a source of concern as soil and rocks are regularly deposited on
the roadway. This is especially pertinent in areas where road cuts expose colluvium and not
bedrock. Smaller materials (sand, gravel, and cobbles) are frequently present on the roadway,
but larger cobbles and boulders currently suspended in roadside cuts may also break loose if
sufficient erosion occurs within cuts that expose colluvium. Infiltration into fractures and
freeze/thaw processes accelerate the weathering of cuts that expose bedrock, loosening

materials on tall and some near-vertical or overhanging slopes. With limited shoulder width on
the uphill side of the roadway, these materials also enter the roadway.
Dry washes are located adjacent to and cross under the roadway (sometimes within culverts)
throughout the alignment, as well as within Areas A, B, and C. Within Area C, topographic data
indicates that a relatively large intermittent drainage channel was cut off by road construction.
The existing road grade in the area (8-12 percent) will direct some flows to the Chicken Creek
culvert which passes under the roadway near Sta: 219+00. Surface-water was not observed in
the area during our investigation, but subsurface exploration revealed that subgrade soils were
moist to wet, possibly retaining moisture from earlier run-off and infiltration. This retained
moisture is a likely contributor to both slope instability and reduced pavement support.
4.3 GEOLOGY
4.3.1 Regional Geology
The North Ogden Divide Road extends from the foothills of the Wasatch Mountains in the eastern
part of the Salt Lake Valley to the western part of Ogden Valley. Ogden Valley separates the
western part of the Wasatch Range from the Bear River Range to the east, a subgroup of
mountains that are part of the parent Wasatch Range. The Wasatch Mountains contain a broad
depositional history of thick Precambrian and Paleozoic sediments that have been subsequently
modified by various tectonic episodes that have included thrusting, folding, intrusion, and
volcanics, as well as scouring by glacial and fluvial processes (Stokes, 1987). The uplift of the
Wasatch Mountains occurred relatively recently during the Late Tertiary Period (Miocene Epoch)
between 12 and 17 million years ago (Milligan, 2000). Since uplift, the Wasatch Front has seen
substantial modification due to such occurrences as movement along the Wasatch Fault and
associated spurs, the development of the numerous canyons that empty into the current Salt
Lake Valley and Utah Valley and their associated alluvial fans, erosion and deposition from Lake
Bonneville, and localized mass-movement events (Hintze, 1988).
The Wasatch Mountains, as part of the Middle Rocky Mountains Province (Milligan, 2000), were
uplifted as a fault block along the Wasatch Fault (Hintze, 1988). Ogden Valley itself is a fault-
bounded trough that was occupied by Lake Bonneville (Sorensen and Crittenden, Jr, 1979) before
being cut through by the Ogden River and subsequently dammed to form the Pineview Reservoir.
The North Ogden Divide roadway passes primarily through Cambrian-aged units of the Willard
Thrust Sheet within the Ogden Thrust Zone, which contains a number of bedrock (inactive) faults
that have served to contort the bedrock units in various orientations along the roadway (Coogan
and King, 2016). Figure A-3 is a Regional Geology Map that shows the various geologic units that
the roadway passes through.

The North Ogden Divide road crosses the Weber Segment of the Wasatch Fault Zone as the road
begins its ascent in the west (see Figure A-3). The Weber Segment is the closest documented
Holocene-aged (active) fault to the property and trends north-south along the Wasatch Front
(USGS and UGS, 2006). Though the road crosses a number of inactive bedrock faults, the Weber
Segment is the only active fault that the road crosses.
4.3.2 Local Geology
As shown on Figure A-3, the roadway primarily passes through Tintic Quartzite bedrock (map unit
Ct) in Area A and Maxfield Limestone bedrock (map unit Cm) in Areas B and C. However, it should
be noted that the roadway in Area C is largely located at the approximate contact between
Maxfield Limestone bedrock to the west and landslide deposits to the east (map unit Qms).
Coogan and King (2016) describe the Tintic Quartzite as a “tan-weathering, cliff-forming, very
well-cemented quartzite, with lenses and beds of quartz-pebble conglomerate, and lesser thin
argillite layers.” The Maxfield Limestone is described as a unit that “from top down includes
dolomite, limestone, argillaceous to silty limestone and calcareous siltstone and argillite, and
basal limestone with argillaceous interval.”
During the site reconnaissance, the Tintic Quartzite exposed in the road cuts in Area A was
observed to be a white to very light gray, highly fractured granular to conglomeratic quartzite.
Despite being highly fractured, the rock was still observed to be hard to very hard. Joint spacing
was typically observed to be between one-half and four inches, with an orientation that
commonly produced wedge to platy-shaped rock fragments. The Maxfield Limestone exposed in
the road cuts in Areas B and C was observed to be highly variable. In some places, it was present
as a mottled dark gray and white cherty limestone that was micritic, thickly bedded, hard to very
hard, and contained some thin shaley/silty interbeds and abundant calcite veining that was not
necessarily coincident with the existing joint pattern. Where this type was present, the road cuts
exhibited a weak blocky jointing. In other areas, the Maxfield Limestone was expressed as a light
gray to pale yellowish brown micritic limestone that exhibited more jointing than the kind
described above, but at random orientations. A third lithologic variation of Maxfield Limestone
was observed to be a moderately hard, medium light gray to light brown argillaceous limestone
that was medium to thickly bedded, blocky jointed, and contained abundant thin calcite veins
and shaley interbeds.
In all three hazard areas, there were a number of places where colluvial deposits were present
that either obscured the bedrock or represented areas where the bedrock had been completely
eroded away. Where present in association with the Tintic Quartzite, the colluvial deposits were
typically a light brown silty, sandy gravel that was dense to very dense, partially cemented, and
contained all angular quartzite clasts. Where present in association with the Maxfield Limestone,

the colluvial deposits were typically a moderate brown silty, sandy gravel that was medium dense
to dense and contained all angular limestone clasts. In both cases, the colluvial deposits exhibited
a wide range in clast sizes, and included some loosely lying and partially buried boulders.
In Area C, surficial evidence indicative of landsliding coincident with the landslide deposits
mapped by Coogan and King (2016) was observed on the downhill side of the road in the form of
inclined trees and in some cases, erosion of the shoulder.
4.4 SOIL AND ROCK MATERIALS

Surficial deposits observed in road cuts largely consisted of coarse-grained alluvial and colluvial
deposits ranging from silt up to cobble and boulder-sized particles. The surficial soils may be
generalized as Silty GRAVEL (GM) or Silty SAND (SM). Rock exposed in roadway cuts typically
consisted of Tintic Quartzite (Rockfall Area A, Sta: 50+00 – 102+00) or Maxfield Limestone
(Rockfall Area B, Sta: 189+00 – 205+00).
Beneath the roadway, exploratory borings typically encountered lean CLAY (CL) with sand and
gravel, clayey-SAND (SC) or clayey-GRAVEL (GC) type soils. Near Station 212+65 in boring NOC-
BH-6, high-plasticity fat CLAY (CH) was encountered.
Considering the lack of clayey soils in the exposed cut slopes, it is possible that some portions of
the fill used to create the road section may have been derived from off-site sources. These soils
tend to retain moisture for longer periods of time and are not as well-suited as granular soils for
pavement support. They can be used, but pavement section thickness must be greater when they
are relied on for roadway support. Additionally, whether native or imported, during construction
clay soils are more difficult to moisture-condition and compact properly in order to achieve their
maximum density and full capacity for pavement support. Relative density and/or stiffness
measured by resistance with the standard penetration test (SPT) during drilling indicated that
compaction of clay soils was variable along the alignment. Laboratory measured moisture
contents also showed that the pavement subgrade had typically retained a significant amount of
moisture. Our field investigation was performed towards the end of a very dry summer season,
therefore the observed moisture must have either been retained from much earlier in the year
or is fed by groundwater transport.
4.5 GEOHYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS
The roadway crosses numerous unmapped drainage channels (Coogan and King, 2016). At the
time of our site investigation, water was not flowing in any of the minor channels that were
observed adjacent to the investigation areas. Therefore, it is assumed that these drainages are
ephemeral and experience stream flow following significant precipitation events or possibly
during rapid snow melt in the winter or spring. Depending on their location, they will carry water

into the North Ogden Canyon drainage which empties westward near North Ogden City or
contribute to flows which travel eastward to the Ogden Valley. The road does cross one named
drainage, Chicken Creek which passes under the roadway in a culvert near Sta: 219+00 then
continues west towards Liberty. However, no water was observed to be within that drainage at
the time of our investigation. Subsurface explorations were limited and did not include the area
immediately adjacent to the Chicken Creek drainage.
There are existing groundwater wells and surface diversions located on the east/south facing
slopes downslope of the road between Sta: 187+00 and 256+00 near Liberty. The surface
diversions are all shown to be downhill of the roadway, so water likely travels under/over the
roadway to reach them. A search of the Utah Division of Water Rights records yielded numerous
well records, but few geologic logs. Those reviewed indicated relatively deep well installation,
highly variable soil/rock conditions and non-artesian conditions. Surface water appears to be the
most likely source of water near the roadway. Based on the topography of the general area and
the location the Weber River/Pineview Reservoir, it is assumed that the groundwater gradient is
generally to the east.
4.6 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

Data from the nearest weather station, Eden-Liberty (USC00422389) is only available from
November 2011 through June 2013 and from May 2016 through the present day (UDC, 2018).
This data indicates that daily low air temperatures will drop below freezing between October and
late May; daytime high air temperatures generally remain below freezing between late October
and April. Records at the Eden-Liberty station show that temperatures generally reach freezing
at some point during each 24-hour period for 6-7 months out of each year and will consistently
remain at or below freezing for approximately 2-4 months each year. Elevation near the weather
station is reported to be 5,195 ft above mean sea level, while the ground surface along the
roadway varies between approximately 4,870 and 6,190 ft above mean sea level. Based on these
elevations and temperature data, we expect the maximum depth of frost penetration to be 42
inches near the North Ogden Divide Trail parking lot (Sta 147+00-148+00), decrease to 30 inches
near North Ogden (Sta: 10+00) and 36 inches near Liberty (Sta: 264+00). Freezing temperatures
are expected to persist for longer periods of the year at higher elevations of the roadway.

5.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING AND INVESTIGATION
5.1 FIELD TESTING AND INVESTIGATION

5.1.1 Geophysical Surveys
Geophysical surveys were not performed as part of this investigation.
5.1.2 Subsurface Borings
Subsurface soil conditions were explored by completing four exploratory borings to depths
ranging from 10 to 26.5 feet below the existing site grade. The approximate locations of the
subsurface explorations are shown on Figure A-2 in Appendix A. The borings were located within
the North Ogden Canyon Road. Exploration points were selected after the pavement condition
assessment was performed by TCC. Their review indicated seven critical areas of pavement
distress; County personnel requested that IGES focus our investigations in four of those seven
areas. After a field review of conditions at all seven locations, the four actual exploration
locations were selected by IGES. Logs of the subsurface conditions as encountered in the
explorations were recorded at the time of drilling by a member of our technical staff and are
presented as Figures B-1 through B-4 of Appendix A. A Key to Soil Symbols and Terminology used
on the boring logs is included as Figure B-5 of Appendix B.
Based on the soil/rock conditions exposed in the road cuts, it was determined that dynamic cone
penetration (DCP) testing would not be suitable for evaluation of pavement subgrade. DCP
testing is intended for use in fine-grained soils and employs relatively small, hand-operated
equipment. It can penetrate some sand and small gravel deposits, but is easily damaged and in
these conditions the results are not reliable.
The borings were completed using a Sonic, track-mounted drill rig equipped with 6-inch casing.
Three of the four explorations (NOC-BH-2, NOC-BH-3, and NOC-BH-4) were completed to 10 feet
below road grade with the intent of reviewing only the pavement support characteristics of sub-
base soils. The fourth boring (NOC-BH-6) was drilled in an area of potential landsliding and
continued into limestone bedrock. No coring of bedrock was performed.
Soil sampling using conventional geotechnical exploration equipment occurred at 2½-foot

intervals; continuous soil sampling was completed using the sonic drilling equipment. Disturbed
soil samples were obtained through the use of a standard split spoon sampler concurrent with
the performance of Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and a California sampler lined with brass
rings. Each sampler was driven with an SPT hammer and relative soil density/stiffness were
documented by recording the number of blows required to drive the respective samplers through
the sampling distance of 18 inches. All samples were transported to our laboratory in Salt Lake

City to evaluate the engineering properties of the various earth materials observed. The soils
were classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) by the Geotechnical
Engineer. Classifications for the individual soil units are shown on the attached boring logs
(Appendix B). Bedrock samples were not collected.
Borings NOC-BH-2 and NOC-BH-3 were most similar, encountering approximately 6 inches of
asphalt underlain by 6 inches to 1 foot of road base material consisting of clayey SAND or GRAVEL,
and the roadbase was underlain by at least 9 feet of lean CLAY with gravel and sand. Similar soil
conditions were also encountered in NOC-BH-4, except the material observed to underlie the
road base was a clayey GRAVEL with sand and cobbles.
Boring NOC-BH-6 was the deepest boring, extending to a depth of 26.5 feet below existing grade
where the top of the Maxfield Limestone bedrock was encountered. This boring was drilled in an
area of slope instability concerns, a place informally identified by the County as the “tree-down
area.” This is a reference to the observable downslope tilting of trees in this area and is a location
where the significant erosion of the shoulder had been taking place. Observed cracks within
pavement are relatively wide, indicating lateral movement in addition to general road surface
distress. This area also represents the geologic contact between the Maxfield Limestone and
landslide deposits on Coogan and King (2016; see Figure A-3) Of note is that though lean CLAY
with sand, gravel, and cobbles was observed underlying the road base (akin to NOC-BH-2 and
NOC-BH-3), intervals of sandy fat CLAY were also encountered and extended down to the
soil/bedrock contact. It is unknown whether the fat clays encountered represented the product
of high-level decomposition and degradation of the limestone bedrock, or if this material had
originated off-site and was transported to the site to be used as fill during road construction. Fat
clay-rich soils produced from the weathering of Norwood Formation bedrock are common in and
around Ogden Valley. Regardless of the origin of the fat clays, it was also observed that this area
coincides with an unnamed ephemeral drainage that was cut off with the installation of the
roadway (see Figures A-1 and A-3). It is possible that the slope instability problems occurring in
this area may be at least in part attributable to the clays in the subsurface acting as low-
permeability barriers that trap meteoric water and/or capture periodic streamflow from the
existing ephemeral drainage.
5.1.3 Geologic Mapping (Rockfall)
The site geology along the roadway alignment in hazard areas A, B, and C was mapped and
characterized by an IGES licensed professional geologist on August 1 and 2, 2018. All geologic
contacts were recorded with the use of a hand-held GPS unit, representing transitions between
the bedrock units (Tintic Quartzite or Maxfield Limestone) and colluvial or undivided alluvial and
colluvial units. Additionally, individual cut slopes along the entire roadway alignment in Areas A
and B were assessed and given a relative rockfall hazard rating on the basis of geologic unit
present, height and steepness of the cut, amount of vegetation and cobbles/boulders present on

the cut slope (where colluvium was present) and their current stability, degree of fracturing and
measured joint lengths and spacings (where bedrock was present), strike and dip of the bedding,
and the presence of loose/overhanging materials. Each of these specifically identified cut slopes
was photographed and a recommendation for rockfall hazard mitigation was assigned to each
stationing range. Site photographs for the specific cut slope stationing ranges are provided in
Appendix B (Figures B-6 through B-36) and Table 5.1.3 provides a summary of the observations,
hazard classification, and recommended rockfall mitigation measures for each of the identified
cut slope ranges.
As shown in Table 5.1.3, the rockfall hazard ranking was variable across different parts of the
roadway alignment in within Evaluation Areas A & B. In general, the rockfall hazard ranking is
considered highest where colluvium was exposed in the road cut, as this material is the easiest
to erode and exposes a number of cobbles and boulders that have the potential to be let loose
over time with repeated storm events or a single high-magnitude storm event. The relative
rockfall hazard was ranked lower in the colluvial unit where cut slopes were lower, gentler, and
more densely vegetated. The Tintic Quartzite expressed in Area A is considered to be in general
a higher rockfall hazard unit than the Maxfield Limestone, as it is more densely fractured, is
exposed in taller road cuts, and commonly exhibits significant overhangs. However, the Tintic
Quartzite in Area A does not pose a dip-slope rockfall hazard threat, as bedding orientations were
measured to dip into the hillslope between 13 and 19 degrees to the northwest and northeast.
Conversely, the Maxfield Limestone presents a dip-slope rockfall hazard threat in some stationing
ranges in Area B, as the bedding was measured to dip between 32 and 57 degrees towards the
road to the northeast and southeast.
IGES reviewed general procedures and recommendations for sizing rockfall catchment areas
adjacent to hillside road-cut slopes susceptible to rockfall. No catchment should be viewed as a
guarantee that rockfall will not reach the roadway. Widely accepted “Ritchie Ditch” design
method (Ritchie, A.M., 1963) utilizes slope angle and slope height to derive minimum with of
rockfall catchment.
Within Area A, slopes generally vary in height from 25-65 feet, with slope angle between 1H:1V
(450) and 0.25H:1V (750). These dimensions indicate that ditches must be 13-20 feet wide for
rockfall protection. With few exceptions, the existing shoulder is generally only six (6) feet wide
within Area A. Some slopes within Area B were estimated to be up to 100 feet tall, with similar
slope angles, which would require ditches to be 25 feet wide. More recently published research
from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT, 2001) indicates that for the observed
slope heights and angles, the catchment width required for 90 percent rockfall retainage could
vary between 9 and 60 feet.

Table 5.1.3 - Rockfall Hazard Evaluation Summary
North Ogden
Approximate Relative Rockfall Hazard
Cenyon Rockfall Geologic Unit Observations Priority Recommended Mitigation
Stationing Range Rating
Hazard Area
54+77 to 56+77 Tintic Quartzite (Ct) bedrock outcrops; small clast Low None
sizes
Fractured bedrock with some
56+77 to 57+44 Tintic Quartzite (Ct) Moderate Scaling
loose boulders
57+44 to 58+38 Colluvium (Qc) Steeper colluvial slope Moderate to High 6 Scaling
58+38 to 60+76 Colluvium (Qc) Gentler colluvial slope Low to Moderate Possible occasional scaling
60+76 to 62+27 Tintic Quartzite (Ct) bedrock outcrops; small clast Low to Moderate Possible occasional scaling
sizes
Alluvium and
62+27 to 63+76 Large drainage Low None
Colluvium (Qac)
63+76 to 64+54 Tintic Quartzite (Ct) bedrock outcrops; small clast Low to Moderate Possible occasional scaling
sizes
64+54 to 69+05 Colluvium (Qc) landslide deposits; highly High 3 Scaling/Netting
cobbly slopes
Alluvium and
69+05 to 72+10 Drainage area Low None
Colluvium (Qac)
landslide deposits; highest
72+10 to 81+01 Colluvium (Qc) High 1 Scaling/Netting
concern from approximately
A
76+85 to 79+14
81+01 to 81+92 Tintic Quartzite (Ct) Thickly bedded outcrop Low None
81+92 to 83+00 Colluvium (Qc) Some loose cobbles/boulders Moderate Possible scaling/netting
83+00 to 84+85 Tintic Quartzite (Ct) Granular outcrop Low None
Contains some active rockfall
chutes
85+43 to 87+13 Colluvium (Qc) Dense vegetation Low None
Heavily fractured 50' outcrop;
87+13 to 88+64 Tintic Quartzite (Ct) Moderate Possible occasional scaling
thin ditches
88+64 to 90+00 Tintic Quartzite (Ct) Active rockfall chutes High Netting
Mix of Tintic Quartzite
90+00 to 90+30 (Ct) and Colluvium Some loose cobbles/boulders High Scaling/Netting
(Qc)
Bedrock outcrops with active
2
90+30 to 94+61 Tintic Quartzite (Ct) rockfall chutes, up to 50' cuts, Moderate to High Scaling/Netting
bedrock overhangs
94+61 to 96+26 Colluvium (Qc) landslide deposits; abundant High Scaling/Netting
cobbles on slope
Alluvium and
96+26 to 97+26 Small drainage Low None
Colluvium (Qac)
Cuts up to 40'; common loose
cobbles/boulders
Maxfield Limestone Limestone outcrop, in part
190+32 to 193+00 Low to Moderate Minor scaling
(Cm) colluvium
Maxfield Limestone
193+00 to 194+58 Blocky outcropping; no ditch Moderate Regular scaling or netting
(Cm)
Maxfield Limestone
194+58 to 197+97 Possible dip-slope failures Moderate to High Scaling/Netting
(Cm)
197+97 to 199+17 Colluvium (Qc) Some loose cobbles/boulders Moderate to High Scaling; possibly netting
Maxfield Limestone
199+17 to 201+02 Colluvium above bedrock Moderate to High Scaling/Netting
B (Cm)
Mix of Maxfield 4
201+02 to 201+94 Limestone (Cm) and Some very large boulders Moderate to High Possible scaling/netting
Colluvium (Qc)
Maxfield Limestone Possible dip-slope failures;
201+94 to 205+09 Moderate to High Scaling/Netting
(Cm) end of significant rockfall
205+09 to 207+12 Colluvium (Qc) Ditches largely free of debris Low to Moderate Possible occasional scaling
Maxfield Limestone
207+12 to 207+57 Small outcrop Low None
(Cm)
Because it is considered impractical and not in the interests of the County to widen the road by
the means of removal of rock and soil on the upslope side of the road in order to create ditches
capable of capturing a higher percentage of rockfall material, mitigation recommendations for
the various stationing ranges did not include ditch widening or deepening as options. Given the
relatively steep mountain grade above the existing cuts, additional width would create even taller
cut slopes. Rockfall impact fences were also not considered as their presence would likely
interfere with snow removal efforts each winter. Instead, the most practical and economic
rockfall hazard mitigation practices recommended for the various stationing ranges included
scaling (removal of loose cobbles and boulders using excavating machinery) and netting
(engineered draperies hung from the top of a cut to direct loose material into ditches), or some
combination thereof.
5.2 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing included the determination of the following:
x Water content, ASTM D2216

x Atterberg limits, ASTM D4318
x PSD, ASTM D6913
x Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive Soils, ASTM D2580
x Proctor, ASTM D698
x CBR, ASTM D1883.
Detailed results of the laboratory testing are provided in Appendix C.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 GENERAL
Near-surface soils at the site are susceptible to saturation and frost heave. To avoid confusion,
we recommend that footings and culvert supports along the entire length of the roadway are
founded at least 42 inches below existing grade for frost protection. If specific slope conditions
make reaching this depth impractical at lower elevations, IGES should be consulted to provide an
acceptable reduction in depth.
6.2 PAVEMENT
Pavement subgrade soils were observed to be relatively fine-grained in each of the explorations
performed. Road base materials also had moderate to high fines content, particularly in Area C
where soils encountered were wet and fine grained in the pavement section. Considering the
time of year of our explorations, it is anticipated that subgrade soils in Area C are continually wet.
Conditions in Area C have been selected as the governing design case for the entire alignment.
UDOT requirements to address frost issues for flexible pavement design are unclear (UDOT,
2007). They make recommendations for characterizing frost heave, but no specific mitigation
measures are recommended. To provide limited protection against frost heave of the native
subgrade, some state DOTs require the total thickness of the constructed pavement section to
be at least 50 percent of the maximum expected frost penetration (Pavement Interactive, 2008).
Explorations performed within the roadway indicate that the existing pavement section varies
from 14 to 22 inches in thickness. This includes 8-10 inches of asphalt which is likely comprised
of the original pavement plus subsequent overlays and patching that have been performed in
areas of observed distress; “road base” fill was measured to be 6-12 inches thick. To meet the
minimum thickness for limited frost protection, the constructed pavement section should be 15
to 21 inches thick, depending on elevation. When asked, County personnel indicated that they
do not recall significant signs of frost heave within paved sections of the roadway. However, it is
possible that the originally constructed pavement section was less than that currently measured,
and that frost heave could be at least partially responsible for initial pavement cracking which
now reflects through subsequent overlays.
For the pavement design IGES, Inc. assumed a design life of 20 years with 3,500 vehicles in each
direction per day. It was also assumed that the traffic volume contained 5% heavy trucks. Based
on field observation and measured blow counts, a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 4 was used in
design. Based on the climate data a minimum pavement section thickness of 22 inches is
recommended throughout the alignment in order to provide frost protection.
Table 6.1 Pavement Section
Granular
Borrow UTBC HMA Geotextile
(in) (in) (in)
17 6 4.5 No
11 6 4.5 Yes
If subgrades soils are not removed/replaced or properly compacted beyond their current density,
a woven geotextile is recommended throughout the alignment to reduce contamination of the
pavement section with fines present in the subgrade soils or a loss of imported granular soils into
the relatively soft subgrade. At a minimum a woven stabilization/separation geotextile is
recommended throughout the alignment for base reduction, reinforcement, and separation. The
minimum recommended geotextile would be a Basetrac Woven PP80, Mirafi 600X or equivalent.
In Area C, the wet condition of the pavement section may be influenced by upslope runoff
infiltrating the pavement section. We anticipate that improvements to surface water conveyance
will be performed; however, it is our opinion that additional measures should be taken to aid im
removal of existing moisture from the road subgrade. The undrained condition of the pavement
section and subgrade could be improved by a geotextile with wicking capabilities, such as Mirafi
H2Ri. Moisture wicking geotextiles should be installed such that the downslope end of the fabric
is daylighted. All geotextiles should be installed in conformance to manufacturers
recommendations and specifications.
Considering the age of the original pavement (well over 50 years) it is our recommendation that
complete removal, subgrade replacement/improvement and reconstruction of the asphalt
section should be performed. However, based on our preliminary discussions with County
personnel, we anticipate that the cost of complete pavement section reconstruction may prohibit
it from being performed along the entire roadway at this time. The County should plan/budget
for a complete replacement of the pavement section as soon as possible. Until that time, milling,
crack filling and asphalt overlay can be performed in areas of the roadway where significant
rutting is not observed. Based on the observed condition of asphalt during our field investigation,
we recommend that a composite geotextile (mat plus grid, Mirafi MPG100, MPG4 or equivalent)
be used between the existing asphalt and overlay. This interlayer will provide improved moisture
protection to keep moisture from and retard the propagation of reflective cracking through the
asphalt overlay. We anticipate that milling depth will be 2.5-3 inches but note that the depth of
milling can increase in areas where extensive asphalt cracking has occurred. Even with a fabric
interlayer, cracks in excess of ¼ inch wide must be filled with appropriate binder prior to
placement of an overlay.

Even with paving fabrics, an overlay should not be viewed as a permanent solution to asphalt
cracking. Properly installed geotextiles can delay the observation of surface cracking in the
asphalt overlay, but they will eventually appear at the surface. Data from manufacturers suggest
that using pavement interlayers will extend the life of an overlay by 3-5 times their “normal”
recurrence rate. For example, if reflective cracking normally appears on a resurfaced roadway
within 1 year after overlay, the addition of an interlayer fabric would be expected to delay the
appearance of cracking for 3-5 years.
Non-rutted areas that are suitable for milling, crack filling and overlay should be determined by
TCC in conjunction with their full pavement condition assessment. Full reconstruction of rutted
areas is recommended.
6.3 ROCKFALL
As noted above, the rockfall hazard in Area A and Area B was variable and dependent upon a
number of different factors. In general, the rockfall hazard was ranking highest where colluvial
deposits were exposed in the road cuts, followed by Tintic Quartzite bedrock and Maxfield
Limestone bedrock. Table 5.1.3 displays the various stationing ranges and their associated
relative rockfall hazard ranking classifications and recommended mitigation practices, and
Appendix B contains representative photographs from each of the delineated stationing ranges.
Stationing ranges with a “high” hazard rating are considered to be the most susceptible to rockfall
hazards, and it is recommended that funds allocated to rockfall hazard mitigation should be
prioritized for these areas. For the high hazard areas, a combination of scaling and netting is
recommended, whereby scaling would initially remove the existing loose material in these areas,
which would be followed by the installation of the netting to preclude rockfall events from having
enough momentum and a clear path to the roadway. Specifically, within Area A, the stationing
range considered to have the highest rockfall hazard concern is associated with a cut that exposes
colluvium from approximately Sta: 76+85 to Sta: 79+14. It is recommended that these mitigation
practices be performed as soon as possible for the high hazard areas.
Similar mitigation practices are recommended for those stationing ranges delineated as having a
moderate to high relative rockfall hazard rating, which comprises a long continuous section of
Area B (approximately Sta: 194+58 to Sta: 205+09). These areas are to be considered of
secondary priority, and it is recommended that scaling and/or netting be performed in these
areas within the next couple years. Stationing ranges with a moderate or low to moderate hazard
rating are not considered to be areas of imminent rockfall hazard threat, but could develop into
higher hazard areas over time. Typically, occasional scaling is recommended for these areas. For
stationing ranges with a low relative hazard rating, no rockfall hazard mitigation is considered to
be currently necessary or into the foreseeable future.

Whereas rockfall fences and ditch widening and deepening are additional means of mitigating
the rockfall hazard, at this time these practices are considered to be impractical and likely cost-
prohibitive. Scaling of the cut slopes should be performed with the road closed in both directions,
with the machine operator positioned such that scaled cobbles and boulders will not roll down
the slope and into the machinery. Rockfall netting should be installed from the top of a cut slope
to the bottom or to within several feet of the bottom of the slope, ensuring that rockfall materials
are filtered into the existing roadway ditches. This netting should be comprised of a gridded wire
mesh that contains no greater than a 2-inch grid spacing and is anchored to the cut slope. Periodic
removal of materials caught by the netting should be anticipated. There are several types of
rockfall netting available that are produced by different manufacturers, including GeoBrugg,
Maccaferri, and similar companies. It is recommended that the specific type of netting be
determined by way of consultation with a specialist from the netting manufacturer. Using aerial
photography and topographic data, we have estimated the total area suitable for netting to be
approximately 217,000 sq-ft. The anticipated unit cost to install netting is generally $10-12 per
sq-ft. A cost of $2.2-2.6M for treatment of all areas identified as moderate to high for rockfall
potential.
6.4 SLOPE STABILITY

Given the current alignment of the roadway there are significant cut and fill slopes (including
retained fill) that remain from the original hillside construction. The stability of all fill slopes and
retaining structures was not evaluated as part of this investigation, but particular attention was
given to “Area C” the slope near Sta: 212+00, the aforementioned “tree-down” area.
Based on the nature of pavement distress observed and a review of geologic mapping (Coogan
and King, 2016) it appears that the road was constructed across the head of a mapped landslide.
Other surficial indications of creeping, unstable slopes such as “jackstrawed” (inclined) trees are
present in this area and other portions of the slopes downhill of the roadway between
approximately Sta: 185+00 - 213+00. The pavement near Sta: 212+65 appears to be excessively
cracked with noticeable lateral separation and has commonly been referred to as the “tree-
down” area because of one relatively large tree adjacent to the roadway which toppled over
sometime within the last 12-15 years. Boring NOC-BH-6 was completed in this area, just uphill of
the downed tree identified by County and TCC personnel. A second exploration in the area was
planned by IGES, but because of schedule constraints was not completed at the request of County
personnel.
We assume that typical cut/fill construction methods were utilized to create the relatively flat
road surface along the canyon wall. TCC’s more recent survey shows that the uphill slope is
failing, possibly due to erosion and lack of vegetative cover; it also shows the downhill edge of

the roadway being several inches lower than the road centerline. Pavement in the area was
measured to be almost 10-inches thick, greater than other areas explored, and we anticipate that
previous overlays have been placed in order to maintain the road level. The subgrade soils
encountered in this area were fine-grained, soft and relatively wet. Organics noted in the soils
recovered from NOC-BH-6 indicate that fill soils may be 7-8 feet thick below the roadway; this fill
is relatively soft and does not appear to have been properly compacted during original
construction.
Topography uphill of the roadway shows that an ephemeral drainage channel was cut off by road
construction. It is likely that surface flows are still directed to this area, eroding the slope uphill
of the roadway and saturating the subgrade soils which can further impact the stability of the fill
supporting the roadway.
Based on the subsurface data collected and the assumed cut/fill construction, IGES developed a
2-dimensional cross-section for limit-equilibrium slope stability analysis using Slide 8.011, by
Rocscience. Strength properties were obtained from laboratory unconsolidated undrained
triaxial tests and correlations from blow counts in near surface soils. The geometry of the road
cross section near boring NOC-BH-6 (approximate station 212+65.63) was obtained from survey
data and topography maps.
Although it is our understanding is that this is a county road and is not a UDOT facility, we feel
that the UDOT Geotechnical Manual of Instruction (GMOI) presents a reasonable standard of
care for slope stability near public roadways in Utah. Based on the GMOI a minimum Factor of
Safety (FOS) of 1.2 is considered stable for a long-term static condition for an embankment that
is not in close proximity to a bridge or critical structure. Seismic and post-seismic conditions are
not evaluated for this type of embankment. Although the design seismic event is unlikely, it is
not anticipated that the embankment will be stable in the seismic or post seismic case. Care
should be exercised during future planning that the embankment slope is mitigated if structures
are planned in an area that could be impacted by a failure of this slope. Results of the analysis
are shown in Table 6.2 and in the global stability models in Appendix D.
Table 6.2 Global Stability Analysis
UDOT
typical Calculated
Design Case FOS FOS
(#) (#)
Unsaturated 1.2 1.3
Saturated 1.2 1.2

As shown in the global stability models, the upslope geometry appears to be an eroding earth
slope. Downslope from the embankment section the slope appears to be an area where soils
have been deposited by landslide. Trees downslope evidence a “jackstrawed” shape usually
associated with long-term continuous movement. Soils encountered in boring NOC-BH-6 were
interpreted to be primarily fine-grained soils, with an interface between soft and medium stiff
soils to stiff fat clays at approximately 10 to 11 feet below ground surface. Fill soils appear to be
compositionally similar to native soils.
It should be noted that under the saturated condition our stability model indicates that the slopes
in Area C are only marginally stable. Infill of natural ephemeral drainages may have occurred
during the original construction of the roadway, and ditches for the removal of water may have
become inundated with eroded materials over time leading to ponding and increased infiltration
of surface runoff. We also anticipate that as time progressed, less durable particles in the
subgrade may have broken down from continuous wetting and traffic wear, therefore becoming
less permeable, more saturated, and increasing the rate of pavement deterioration. Seasonal
loosening of near surface soils from frost action may also contribute to the introduction of
surface water into the subgrade. In order to reduce the moisture in the subgrade a moisture
wicking geotextile as indicated in the pavement design section (6.2.1) is recommended.
It was noted that the pavement surface in Area C is generally sloped downhill. It is assumed that
the road was originally constructed level. Based on field data and laboratory data it is anticipated
that the embankment and pavement section are influenced by colluvial creep of high plasticity
soils.
With only a single exploration in the area, we do not have sufficient understanding of subsurface
conditions to prepare a complete mitigation plan for the entire length of Area C. Preliminary
modeling does not indicate that a catastrophic failure is imminent, but the slopes should not be
considered stable. It is our recommendation that the area be monitored by topographic survey
for at least one year to determine the current rate of slope creep. If the surface appears to be
moving at a rate of more than 3-inches per year, we recommend that additional study be
performed to determine appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation of slope creep may require
costly mitigation procedures. Removal of water from the near surface soils will not mitigate
colluvial creep, but could reduce seasonal increases in load from soils becoming saturated and
improve the performance of the pavement.

7.0 CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS
The concept of risk is a significant consideration of geotechnical analyses. The analytical means
and methods used in performing geotechnical analyses and development of resulting
recommendations do not constitute an exact science. Analytical tools used by geotechnical
engineers are based on limited data, empirical correlations, engineering judgment and
experience. As such the solutions and resulting recommendations presented in this report cannot
be considered risk-free and constitute IGES’s best professional opinions and recommendations
based on the available data and other design information available at the time they were
developed. IGES has developed the preceding analyses, recommendations and designs, at a
minimum, in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices
and care being exercised in the project area at the time our services were performed. No
warrantees, guarantees or other representations are made.
The boring logs, laboratory test data, and information contained in this report are based on
limited field exploration, laboratory testing, and understanding of the project. The subsurface
data used in the preparation of this report were obtained largely from the explorations made for
this investigation. It is very likely that variations in the soil, rock, and groundwater conditions
exist between and beyond the points explored. The nature and extent of the variations may not
be evident until construction occurs and additional explorations are completed. If any conditions
are encountered at this site that are different from those described in this report, IGES should be
immediately notified so that we may make any necessary revisions to recommendations
contained in this report. In addition, if the scope of the proposed construction changes from that
described in this report, our firm should also be notified.
It is the client's responsibility to see that all parties to the project including the designer,
contractor, subcontractors, etc. are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of
information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's
option and risk.
We recommend that IGES be retained to review the final design plans and specifications in order
to determine that our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated in the
design documents. We also recommend that IGES be retained to evaluate, construction
performance and other geotechnical aspects of the projects as construction initiates and
progresses through its completion.

8.0 REFERENCES
AASHTO. (2008). Designation:T 288-91 "Standard Method of Test for Determining Minimum
Laboratory Soil Resistivity". Washington DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. (2008). Standard Method of Test for Determining pH of Soil for Use in Corrosion Testing.
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (2012). ASTM Standards (Vol. 04.08). West
Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (2012). ASTM Standards (Vol. 04.09). West
Conshohocken, PA.
Black, B.D., Hecker, S., Hylland, M.D., Christenson, G.E., and McDonald G.N., (2003). Quaternary
Fault and Fold Database and Map of Utah: Utah geological Survey Map 193DM.
Coogan, J.C., and King, J.K., 2016, Interim Geologic Map of the Ogden 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Box
Elder, Cache, Davis, Morgan, Rich, and Summit Counties, Utah, and Uinta County,
Wyoming: Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 653DM, 1 Plate, 151 p., Scale
1:62,500.
Hales Engineering, (2015) Weber County Transportation Master Plan, Ogden Valley, Unpublished
consultants report UT13-529
Hecker, S., (1993). Quaternary Tectonics of Utah with Emphasis on Earthquake-Hazard

Characterization: Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 127, 157p.
Hintze, L.F., 1988, Geologic History of Utah: Brigham Young University Geology Studies Special
Publication 7, Provo, Utah, 202 p.
Milligan, M.R., 2000, How was Utah’s topography formed? Utah Geological Survey, Survey Notes,
v. 32, no.1, pp. 10-11.
National Climate Data Center (NCDC), 2013, Daily Summaries for Fort Duchesne, UT US, Station
ID: GHCND:USC00422996, Lat: 40.2841o/Long: -109.8611o , Period of record: July 12 ,
1983 - July 12, 2013, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
(www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web).
Pavement Interactive, 2008, "Calculation of Frost Depth"

http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/calculation-of-frost-depth/#refmark-2
Ritchie, A.M., (1963). Evaluation of rock fall and its control. Highway Research Record 17,
Highway Research Board, NRC, Washington, DC, pp. 13-28.

Sorensen, M.L., and Crittenden, Jr., M.D., 1979, Geologic Map of the Huntsville Quadrangle,
Weber and Cache Counties, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey GQ-1503, 1 Plate, Scale
1:24,000.
Stokes, W.L., 1987, Geology of Utah: Utah Museum of Natural History and Utah Geological and
Mineral Survey Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, UT, Utah Museum of
Natural History Occasional Paper 6, 280 p.
U.S. Geological Survey and Utah Geological Survey, 2006, Quaternary fault and fold database for
the United States, accessed 10-1-18, from USGS website:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults
UDOT, 2007 Pavement Management and Pavement Design Manual, Updated November 2007
UDOT, 2017, Geotechnical Manual of Instruction. March 2011.
U.S. Geological Survey, (2012). U.S. Seismic “Design Maps” Web Application, site:
https://geohazards.usgs.gov/secure/designmaps/us/application.php, site accessed on
September 25, 2018 .
Utah Division of Water Rights Website: http://maps.waterrights.utah.gov/mapserver/

wrplat83/wrplatGE.asp

9.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Investigation Maps
Appendix B: Observations and Data Collection
Appendix C: Laboratory Investigation
Appendix D: Slope Stability
Appendix E: Pavement Analysis

APPENDIX A
0 4000 8000
Feet
0 2400
1200
Feet
0 2400
1200
Feet
MAP LEGEND
REFERENCE: COOGAN, J.C., AND KING, J.K., 2016, INTERIM GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE OGDEN 30' X 60' QUADRANGLE, BOX
ELDER, CACHE, DAVIS, MORGAN, RICH, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, UTAH, AND UINTA COUNTY, WYOMING:
UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN-FILE REPORT 653DM
PLOT DATE: 10/30/18
DESIGNED BY: PD APPROVED BY:

CONSULTANTS: DATE: 10/5/18 DATE:
JH
2702 South 1030 West, Suite 10 DRAWN BY: JH PLOT

DATE: 10/18/18 SCALE 1=1
PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC & GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
South Salt Lake City, Utah
CHECKED BY: PD DWG
(801) 270-9400 DATE: 10/30/18 SCALE NTS
WEBER COUNTY, UTAH

(801) 270-9401 Fax PROJECT: REVISION NO:
01821-002 1
A-3b
MARK DATE BY CHK MARK DATE BY CHK FIGURE NO.
REVISIONS REVISIONS ideas for a changing world COPYRIGHT 2018 GEOLOGIC MAP LAGEND

APPENDIX B
STARTED: 9/5/18 Geotechnical Investigation IGES Rep: Bragdon BORING NO:
DATE COMPLETED: 9/5/18

North Odgen Canyon Road Improvements, Rig Type: L250 Mini Sonic NOC-BH-2
North Ogden, Utah Boring Type: Sonic
BACKFILLED: 9/5/18 Sheet 1 of 1
Project Number 01821-002-SSE
DEPTH LOCATION Moisture Content
Moisture Content %
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHICAL LOG
41.31501 and
Percent minus 200

LATITUDE LONGITUDE111.90986 ELEVATION 5,772.10
WATER LEVEL
Dry Density(pcf)
UNIFIED SOIL
Atterberg Limits
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
METERS
SAMPLES
Plastic Moisture Liquid

FEET
Limit Content Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N N* SPT BLOW COUNT
102030405060708090 102030405060708090
0 0
0.6' of Asphalt
GC Clayey GRAVEL with sand and

cobbles. Road base fill material.
Lean CLAY with gravel and sand -

CL very stiff, slightly moist, medium
yellowish brown, angular quartzite
gravel. 5
1 17 27
10
5 Grades to stiff and medium brown.

6
4 11 15
7
43 22
Lean CLAY with sand gravel and

cobbles - stiff, slightly moist,
medium brown.
3 10
Groundwater not encountered.
Backfilled with cuttings, bentonite
LOG OF BORING (A) SIMPLIFIED (LAT-LONG) GINT LOGS.GPJ IGES.GDT 10/2/18
5
chips and capped with asphalt cold 5 11
patch. 6
Bottom of Boring @ 11.5 Feet
N - OBSERVED UNCORRECTED BLOW COUNT *N(60) - CORRECTED EQUIVALENT SPT BLOW COUNTS PER FOOT
SAMPLE TYPE NOTES:
- 2" O.D./1.38" I.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
- 3.25" O.D./2.42" I.D. U SAMPLER
Figure
- 3" O.D. THIN-WALLED SHELBY SAMPLER
- GRAB SAMPLE
- 3" O.D./2.38" I.D. CALIFORNIA SAMPLER WATER LEVEL 3
Copyright (c) 2018, IGES, INC. - 2.5" O.D./1.88" I.D. MOD. CAL. SAMPLER - MEASURED - ESTIMATED

Moisture Content %
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHICAL LOG
41.31934 and
Percent minus 200

LATITUDE LONGITUDE 111.90444 ELEVATION 6,053.62
WATER LEVEL
Dry Density(pcf)
UNIFIED SOIL
Atterberg Limits
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
METERS
SAMPLES

FEET
Limit Content Limit

102030405060708090 102030405060708090
0 0
0.6' of Asphalt.
SC Clayey SAND with gravel and

Lean CLAY with gravel and some

CL sand - very stiff to hard, slightly
moist, medium yellowish brown.
8
1 13 46
33
5 Grades to stiff.
5
6 12 36 20
6

chips and capped with asphalt cold
patch.
3 10
Bottom of Boring @ 10 Feet
SAMPLE TYPE NOTES:
- 3.25" O.D./2.42" I.D. U SAMPLER
Figure
- 3" O.D.THIN-WALLED SHELBY SAMPLER
- GRAB SAMPLE

Moisture Content %
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHICAL LOG
41.32549 and
Percent minus 200

WATER LEVEL
Dry Density(pcf)
UNIFIED SOIL
Atterberg Limits
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
METERS
SAMPLES

FEET
Limit Content Limit

102030405060708090 102030405060708090
0 0
0.6' of Asphalt.
SC Clayey SAND with gravel and

Clayey GRAVEL with sand and some

GC cobbles (2.5' - 5') - dense, slightly
moist, light grayish brown.
40
1 15 35
20
5
4
5 12
7
With Abundant Cobbles (6.5'-8').

Clayey GRAVEL with sand and
cobbles - dense, dry to slightly
moist, pale brown to grayish brown.
patch.
3 10
Bottom of Boring @ 10 Feet
SAMPLE TYPE NOTES:
- 3.25" O.D./2.42" I.D. U SAMPLER
Figure
- GRAB SAMPLE

Moisture Content %
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHICAL LOG
41.33231 and
Percent minus 200

WATER LEVEL
Dry Density(pcf)
UNIFIED SOIL
Atterberg Limits
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
METERS
SAMPLES

FEET
Limit Content Limit

102030405060708090 102030405060708090
0 0
0.8' of Asphalt.
GC Old asphalt and clayey GRAVEL with

sand. Road base fill material.
CL Lean Clay with sand and gravel - soft,

moist to wet, dark yellowish brown.
1
1 1 2
1
Grades to slightly moist and with trace

5 organics.
3 97 16 42 20
3 6
5
Clayey SAND with gravel and trace
2 SC silt - loose, slightly moist, yellowish
brown.
Grades to medium stiff and with some

organics.
3 18
3 7 33 14
4
CL Lean CLAY with gravel and cobbles -

3 10 stiff, slightly moist, moderate
yellowish brown, gravel is broken
limestone.
25 109 16 23 4
17 12
Fat CLAY with trace sand - stiff, 6 26 77 70 49
CH slightly moist, yellowish brown,

trace iron oxide staining, roots and
organics.
Grades to very stiff

3
4 8 19 56 36
11
SAMPLE TYPE NOTES:
- 3.25" O.D./2.42" I.D. U SAMPLER
Figure
- GRAB SAMPLE
- 3" O.D./2.38" I.D. CALIFORNIA SAMPLER WATER LEVEL 6a

Moisture Content %
CLASSIFICATION
GRAPHICAL LOG
41.33231 and
Percent minus 200

LATITUDE 111.89154
LONGITUDE ELEVATION 5,571.23
WATER LEVEL
Dry Density(pcf)
UNIFIED SOIL
Atterberg Limits
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
METERS
SAMPLES

FEET
Limit Content Limit

102030405060708090 102030405060708090
15 CL Lean CLAY with sand - stiff to very
stiff, slightly moist, moderate 11 106 21 46 27
yellowish brown, trace caliche and 18 19
iron oxides. 21
5
4
With gravel. 8 16
8
Clayey GRAVEL with sand - medium
GC dense, slightly moist, moderate 30
yellowish brown, trace roots and
organics.
6
20 CL Lean CLAY with gravel - stiff to very
stiff, slightly moist, moderate
yellowish brown, angular limestone 8 117 13 47 29
gravel. 12 14 16 44
14
CH Sandy Fat CLAY with gravel - very

7 stiff, slightly moist, moderate
yellowish brown. 7
8 18 14 54 50 32
10
25
14 111 18 60
30 51 31
50/4"
8
Top of weathered limestone bedrock.
patch.
Bottom of Boring @ 26.5 Feet
SAMPLE TYPE NOTES:
- 3.25" O.D./2.42" I.D. U SAMPLER
Figure
- GRAB SAMPLE
- 3" O.D./2.38" I.D. CALIFORNIA SAMPLER WATER LEVEL 6b
^L=M73´scLW´/W)ssL=M/)xLc^´ssy7[´
\*Sdm´4NNtNd_t´ zhN0*X´

t\-dX´ 4:t0mNhzNd_t´

+$D$*%D$*% D

B´
,')$%D+'D&&D"$D "D %D

Cm*:Xt´ D$*%D {8u{iO{´
+&D(D

#""$- $D$*%D$*
% D u+]iY9´ Ye1+{Peb´ u+]iY8Ýe1+{Oeb´
;=1DA4.:D4.72D;2D "$D "D %D
Bi´ ,&)$%D+&D''D"$D "D %D
/;.>?1D2>./A6;:D
5?D7.=31>DA4.:D %'-D$*%D$* %'
% D
@41DD?61C1D $*%D B]´ ,8)$%D
0d*mt:´
Cm*N_:4´
tdNXt´
Q|F´f<n´
D %D --D$*%D$*
%
-D
B1´ ,&)$%D

+{8o´ Y88Y´
¡´¦´¤¢¥ ª¤£´

+{8o´ Y88Y´
¡ ´¯¦´¦©ª´£¤¬£ª§´
;=1DA4.:D4.72D
;2D9.@1>5.7D
D% %D
+$D% %D% $*D
5?D7.=31>DA4.:D u´ ,&)$%D+&D''D"$D "D %D
@41DD?51C1D +'D&&D
t*_4t´ "$D "D %D
#""$-$D% %D% $*D

ui´ ,&)$%D+&D''D"$D "D %D 5;v2pNj}Ng`´ 5;v2pNj}Ng`´
;>1D@4.:D4.72D;2D

/;.>?1D2>./A6;:D %D&-D% !%D% !
$* %'D ;*TZ´ 2p\-Z;v´gp´-p;*TvŃ}G´H*`5ZN`D´gp´vZNDG}´>N`D;p´jp;vvp;´
,')$%D
6?D?9.771=DA4.:D
A41DD?51C1D % %D+&D \g5;m*};Z´ 2p\-Z;v´gp´-p;*TvŃ}G´2g`vN5;p*-Z;´>N`D;p´jp;vvp;´
f<n´´?Qa<w´
--D% %D v}pg`DZ´ NZZ´`g}´2p\-Z;´gp´-p;*TŃ}G´>N`D;p´jp;vvp;´
u1´
% $*-D,&)$%D
"$ D%'%DD*$-D D% %D

cxI7qý7sys´ U7´
%D'-D"$D--D D% %D
--D%D'%D+&D%'D#%'&-D 1´ 1ebueYP6+{Peb´ uP99´+b+YuPu´
tNX~t´*_4´0X*t´ "$ D-%D"D"+D&"D)D +8o.oBÝP]P{u´ 6u´ 6Po81{úJ8+o´
1Y´ #%&'-D $*-D-%D 1´ b1eb@Pb86´ 1e]io8uuPeb´ {´ {oP+P+Y´
6<B50D7595AD71??DA4.:DD % -D-%D%D&-D-%D D-%D
AN_:´ ueY.PYP´ o´ o9uPu{PP´
"$ D%'%DD"$ D%D'-D-%D
Cm*N_:4´
tdNXt´ eY´ "D"+D#%'&-D
eoB+bP1´1eb{9b{´
1.o´ 1+YP@eobP+´.8+oPbBó,{Pe´

u´
o +Y9´
ueY.Y8úY@+{8u´
1e]«´ ]ePu{o868buPó8Y+{PebuJPi´ i]´ i8o]8+.PYP´
;>1D@4.:D4.72D "$ D%'%D")%D"$D
;2D9.@1>5.7D
&"")%D D% D"$D%&D 1 ´ 1+YP@eobP+´P]i+1{´ ´ ´ @Pb9o´{J+b´´
5?D?9.771>D@4.:D 1eY´ 1eYY+iu8íe{8b{P+Y´ ui81P@P1´Bo,P´
tNX~t´*_4´0X*t´
A41DD?61C1D "$ D-%D"DD#%&'-D
1J´ 'D-%D
uJoPbV´ u8YY´ uY´ u8YYÝe+6´
6<B50D7596@D3=1.A1>DA4.:DD
"$ D-%DD"$ D%&%D
eJ´ "D)'"D#%&'-D

#&D))%D%+#D%"%D 5;v2pNj}Ng`´ !
KNCKX´dmC*_N0´tdNXt´ i{´
+&DD"$ D" ' &%D
}m*2;´ '#´
vg\;´ # ´
N}G´ ( ´

5;v2pNj}Ng`´ >N;Z5´};v}´ E7^7rW´ ^cx7s´
! Y£©´©¥¦ª£´©ª§ª´¤£´ª´ ¤©´§¥§©£ª´¥¥¦¤°¢ª´¤¬£§©´¤£ ±´
5p´ *-v;`2;´g>´\gNv}p; ´5v}´5p´}g´}H;´}g2G´
+ª¬ ´ª¦£©ª¤£©´¢±´´¦¬¡´
\gNv}´ 5*\j´-}´`gŃvN-Z;´*};p´
b¤´¯§¦£ª±´©´¥§¤´©´ª¤´ª´¤£ª£¬ª±´¤´©¤ ´¤£ª¤£©´ª¯£´
;}´ NvN-Z;´>p;;´*};p ´ v*ZZ´vgNZ´-;Zg´*};p´}*-Z;´ £¬¡´ ©¢¥¡´ ¤ª¤£©´
sxryL=M/)xLc^´ Y¤©´§¥¦©£ª´£§¡´©¤ ´¤£ª¤£©´¤©¨´ª´ª´¥¤£ª´¤´°¥¡¤§ª¤£´

5;v2pNj}Ng²´ }HN2T`;vv´ 5;v2pNj}Ng`´ }HN2T`;vv´ ¤£´ª´ª´£ª´
v;*\´ $ ´ g22*vNg`*Z´ g`;´gp´Z;vv´j;p´>gg}´g>´}GN2T`;vv´

P£´£¦
´ £ú¤ ´1¡©©ª¤£´©£ª¤£©´¥§©£ª´¤£´ª´ ¤©´
¯¦´¡¬ª´±´©¬ ´¢ª¤©´¤£ ±´ {¦¤¦´ ª¬ ´©£ª¤£©´©´
Z*;p´ ´ >p;l;`}´ \gp;´}G*`´g`;´j;p´>gg}´g>´}HN2T`;vv´ ¤£´¡¤§ª¤§®´ª©ª©´¢®´§®´
)kk)q7^x´q7W)xM7´ 37^sM´ /c)qs7ErM^73´scLW´

\g5N>N;5´2*´ 2*ZN>gp`N*´ p;Z*}N;´

vj}´
5;`vN}´ ! 5;
³R
}´
;p´Zggv;´ '"´ '"´ '#´ #´ ;*vNZ´j;`;}p*};5Ń}H´ N`2H´p;N`>gp2N`D´pg5´jvH;5´-´H*`5´
Zggv;´ "´ # ´ ##´ #!#´ 5N>>N2Z}´}g´j;`;}m*};Ń}G´ N`2G´p;N`>gp2N`D´pg5´jvG;5´-´H*`5´
\;5N\´5;`v;´ ! ´ !#´ #"´ !#$#´ ;*vNZ´j;`;}p*};5´*´>gg}Ń}H´ N`2H´p;N`>gp2N`D´pg5´5pN;`Ń}G´#Z-´G*\\;p´
5;`v;´ ! #´ !#$´ "%´ $#&#´ 5N>>N2Z}´}g´j;`;}p*};5´*´>gg}Ń}G´ N`2G´p;N`>gp2N`D´pg5´5pN;`Ń}H´#Z-´H*\\;p´
;p´5;`v;´ (#´ ($´ (%´ &#´ j;`;}p*};5´g`Z´*´>;Ń`2G;vŃ}G´ N`2G´p;N`>gp2N`D´pg5´5pN;`Ń}H´#Z-´G*\\;p´
/c^sLsy7^/´ jg2T;}´
}gp*`;´
j;`;}pg\;};p´
=L^7ErM^73´scLW´
`}p*N`;5´ `2g`>N`;5´
2g`vNv};`2´ vj}´ vH;*p´ 2g\jp;vvN;´
! v}p;`D}G´ v}p;`D}G´
;*vNZ´ j;`;}m*};5´ v;;p*ZŃ`2G;v´-´}H\-´ ;5;v´-;};;`´}G\-´*`5´
;p´vg>}´ '´ ' #´ ' #´ >N`D;pv´G;`´ vl;;;5´ -´G*`5´
vg>}´ "´ # #´ # #´ ;*vNZ´j;`;}p*};5´g`;Ń`2G´-´}G\-´ \gZ5;5´-´ZNDG}´>N`D;p´jp;vvp;´

j;`;}m*};5´g;p´ ´ N`2H´-´}H\-Ń}H´\g5;p*};´;>>gp}´ \gZ5;5´-´v}pg`D´
\;5N\´v}N>>´ "&´ # #´ #´ >N`D;p´jp;vvp;´
v}N>>´ & #´ #´ ´ N`5;`};5´*-g}´ ´ N`2H´-´}H\-´-}´j;`;}p*};5´g`ZŃ}H´Dp;*}´;>>gp}´
;p´v}N>>´ #! ´ ´ "´ p;*5NZŃ`5;`};5´-´}G\-`*NZ´
G*p5´ (! ´ ( ´ ("´ N`5;`};5Ń}H´5N>>N2Z}´-´}G\-`*NZ´

"
!!!
!!!
Station54+77to56+77:LowHazard
North Ogden Canyon Road Date of Site Photography: August 1, 2018 Figure
Preliminary Geologic &
Geotechnical Evaluation
Weber County, Utah
B-6
Project Number – 01821-002 RECONAISSANCE PHOTOGRAPHY (Rockfall Evaluation)
Station56+77to57+44:ModerateHazard
Weber County, Utah
B-7
Station57+44to58+38:ModeratetoHighHazard
Weber County, Utah
B-8
Station58+38to60+76:LowtoModerateHazard
Weber County, Utah
B-9
Weber County, Utah
B-10
• Noimageduetotheareainthisstationingrange
beingalargedrainage.
Weber County, Utah
B-11
Weber County, Utah
B-12
Station64+54to69+05:HighHazard
Weber County, Utah
B-13
• Noimageduetotheareainthisstationingrange
beingalargedrainage.
Weber County, Utah
B-14
Weber County, Utah
B-15
Weber County, Utah
B-16
Weber County, Utah
B-17
Weber County, Utah
B-18
Weber County, Utah
B-19
Weber County, Utah
B-20
Weber County, Utah
B-21
Weber County, Utah
B-22
Weber County, Utah
B-23
Weber County, Utah
B-24
Weber County, Utah
B-25
Weber County, Utah
B-26
Weber County, Utah
B-27
Weber County, Utah
B-28
Weber County, Utah
B-29
Weber County, Utah
B-30
Weber County, Utah
B-31
Weber County, Utah
B-32
Weber County, Utah
B-33
Weber County, Utah
B-34
Weber County, Utah
B-35
Weber County, Utah
B-36
NearSta:56+00– 58+00
Weber County, Utah
B-37
Project Number – 01821-002 RECONAISSANCE PHOTOGRAPHY (Pavement Distress Areas)
ExplorationNOCBH2(~Sta:106+50)
North Ogden Canyon Road Date of Site Photography: September 5, 2018 Figure
Weber County, Utah
B-38
Project Number – 01821-002 Subsurface Exploration (Pavement Distress Areas)
Weber County, Utah
B-39
Project Number – 01821-002 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION (Pavement Distress Areas)
Saturatedclayand
clayrichsoilsfrom
pavementsection
androadsubgrade
Weber County, Utah
B-39
Project Number – 01821-002 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION (Pavement Distress Areas)

APPENDIX C
Water Content and Unit Weight of Soil
(In General Accordance with ASTM D7263 Method B and D2216) © IGES 2004, 2018
Project: North Ogden Canyon

No: 01821-002
Location: North Ogden, Weber Co. UT
Date: 9/17/2018
By: JP
Boring No. OC-BH-2 OC-BH-6 OC-BH-6

Sample
Info.
Sample:
Depth: 5.0' 10.5' 20.5'
Sample height, H (in) 3.017 4.037
Unit Weight Info.
Sample diameter, D (in) 2.431 2.427

Sample volume, V (ft3) 0.0081 0.0108
Mass rings + wet soil (g) 600.59 827.93
Mass rings/tare (g) 136.66 181.61
Moist soil, Ws (g) 463.93 646.32
Moist unit wt., Jm (pcf) 126.21 131.84
Wet soil + tare (g) 382.94 421.87 765.45
Content
Water
Dry soil + tare (g) 348.57 381.52 690.40

Tare (g) 122.34 128.40 121.42
Water Content, w (%) 15.2 15.9 13.2
Dry Unit Wt., J d (pcf) 108.9 116.5
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________ Z:\PROJECTS\01821_Weber_County\002_North_Ogden_Canyon\[MDv1.xlsx]1
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils
(ASTM D4318) © IGES 2004, 2018
Project: North Ogden Canyon Road Boring No.: OC-BH-2

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Location: North Ogden, Weber Co. UT Depth: 8-9.5'
Date: 9/25/2018 Description: Brown lean clay
By: BRR
Grooving tool type: Plastic Preparation method: Air Dry
Liquid limit device: Mechanical Liquid limit test method: Multipoint
Rolling method: Hand Screened over No.40: Yes
Larger particles removed: Dry sieved
Approximate maximum grain size: No.4
Estimated percent retained on No.40: Not requested
Plastic Limit As-received water content (%): Not requested
Determination No 1 2
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 13.65 14.16
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 12.51 12.93
Water Loss (g) 1.14 1.23
Tare (g) 7.11 7.04
Dry Soil (g) 5.40 5.89
Water Content, w (%) 21.11 20.88
Liquid Limit
Determination No 1 2 3
Number of Drops, N 28 22 17
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 14.12 14.39 14.19
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 12.03 12.23 11.94
Water Loss (g) 2.09 2.16 2.25
Tare (g) 7.12 7.31 7.08
Dry Soil (g) 4.91 4.92 4.86
Water Content, w (%) 42.57 43.90 46.30
One-Point LL (%) 43 43
Liquid Limit, LL (%) 43

Plastic Limit, PL (%) 21
Plasticity Index, PI (%) 22
46.5 60
Flow Curve Plasticity Chart
46
50 U-Line
45.5 A-Line
45 CH
40
Water content (%)
Plastic Index (PI)
44.5
30
44
MH
43.5 20
LL = 43 CL
43
10
42.5 ML
CL-ML
42 0
10 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of drops, N Liquid Limit (LL)
Reviewed:___________ Z:\PROJECTS\01821_Weber_County\002_North_Ogden_Canyon\[ALv2.xlsm]1
(ASTM D4318) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Location: North Ogden, Weber Co. UT Depth: 5.0'
By: BRR
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 13.88 14.18
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 12.92 13.17
Tare (g) 7.06 7.05
Dry Soil (g) 5.86 6.12
Liquid Limit
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 15.87 14.23 14.49
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 13.63 12.33 12.47
Water Loss (g) 2.24 1.90 2.02
Tare (g) 7.07 7.11 7.12
Dry Soil (g) 6.56 5.22 5.35
Water Content, w (%) 34.15 36.40 37.76
One-Point LL (%) 37

38.5 60
38
50 U-Line
37.5
A-Line
37 CH
40
Water content (%)
Plastic Index (PI)
36.5
LL = 36
36 30
35.5 MH
35 20
CL
34.5
10
34 CL-ML ML
33.5 0
10 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(ASTM D4318) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
By: BRR
Approximate maximum grain size: 3/4"
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 12.46 12.88
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 11.38 11.74
Tare (g) 6.42 6.44
Dry Soil (g) 4.96 5.30
Liquid Limit
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 13.87 14.59 13.25
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 11.91 12.34 11.37
Water Loss (g) 1.96 2.25 1.88
Tare (g) 7.08 7.08 7.07
Dry Soil (g) 4.83 5.26 4.30
Water Content, w (%) 40.58 42.78 43.72
One-Point LL (%) 43

44.5 60
44
50 U-Line
43.5 A-Line
43 CH
40
Water content (%)
Plastic Index (PI)
42.5
LL = 42 30
42
MH
41.5 20
CL
41
10
40.5 ML
CL-ML
40 0
10 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(ASTM D4318) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
By: BRR
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 12.52 13.72
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 11.58 12.68
Tare (g) 6.50 7.07
Dry Soil (g) 5.08 5.61
Liquid Limit
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 15.76 15.74 15.15
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 13.63 13.55 13.13
Water Loss (g) 2.13 2.19 2.02
Tare (g) 7.09 7.10 7.33
Dry Soil (g) 6.54 6.45 5.80
Water Content, w (%) 32.57 33.95 34.83
One-Point LL (%) 33

35 60
34.5 50 U-Line
A-Line
34 CH
40
Water content (%)
Plastic Index (PI)
33.5 30
LL = 33
MH
33 20
CL
32.5 10
CL-ML ML
32 0
10 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(ASTM D4318) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Date: 9/25/2018 Description: Brown silty clay
By: BRR
Plastic Limit As-received water content (%): 15.9
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 14.57 15.35
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 13.36 13.99
Tare (g) 7.03 7.03
Dry Soil (g) 6.33 6.96
Liquid Limit
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 15.47 13.37 13.82
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 13.95 12.16 12.48
Water Loss (g) 1.52 1.21 1.34
Tare (g) 7.13 7.06 7.01
Dry Soil (g) 6.82 5.10 5.47
Water Content, w (%) 22.29 23.73 24.50

25 60
24.5 50 U-Line
A-Line
24 CH
40
Water content (%)
Plastic Index (PI)
23.5 30
MH
23 20
LL = 23 CL
22.5 10
CL-ML ML
22 0
10 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(ASTM D4318) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Date: 9/26/2018 Description: Brown fat clay
By: BRR
Grooving tool type: Plastic Preparation method: Wet
Estimated percent retained on No.40: See Particle Size Distribution
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 13.35 13.85
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 12.26 12.67
Tare (g) 7.06 7.07
Dry Soil (g) 5.20 5.60
Liquid Limit
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 13.49 13.03 14.03
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 10.93 10.70 11.22
Water Loss (g) 2.56 2.33 2.81
Tare (g) 7.02 7.38 7.42
Dry Soil (g) 3.91 3.32 3.80
Water Content, w (%) 65.47 70.18 73.95
One-Point LL (%) 70

75 60
74
Flow Curve Plasticity Chart U-Line
50
73
A-Line
72 CH
40
Water content (%)
Plastic Index (PI)
71
70 30
LL = 70
69 MH
68 20
CL
67
10
66 CL-ML ML
65 0
10 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(ASTM D4318) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
By: BRR
Larger particles removed: Wet sieved
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 13.50 13.91
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 12.33 12.77
Tare (g) 6.43 7.09
Dry Soil (g) 5.90 5.68
Liquid Limit
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 14.51 14.73 15.67
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 11.89 11.95 12.44
Water Loss (g) 2.62 2.78 3.23
Tare (g) 7.09 7.13 7.12
Dry Soil (g) 4.80 4.82 5.32
Water Content, w (%) 54.58 57.68 60.71

62 60
61 U-Line
50
60 A-Line
CH
40
Water content (%)
59
Plastic Index (PI)
58 30
MH
57
20
CL
56 LL = 56
10
55
CL-ML ML
54 0
10 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(ASTM D4318) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
By: BRR
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 13.19 13.16
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 12.11 12.19
Tare (g) 6.43 7.08
Dry Soil (g) 5.68 5.11
Liquid Limit
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 13.78 14.04 14.63
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 11.73 11.78 12.20
Water Loss (g) 2.05 2.26 2.43
Tare (g) 7.10 7.08 7.23
Dry Soil (g) 4.63 4.70 4.97
Water Content, w (%) 44.28 48.09 48.89
Comments:
Liquid Limit, LL (%) 46 7.22
50 60
49 50 U-Line
A-Line
48 CH
40
Water content (%)
Plastic Index (PI)
47 30
MH
46 20
CL
LL = 46
45 10
CL-ML ML
44 0
10 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(ASTM D4318) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
By: BRR
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 13.43 15.04
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 12.37 13.81
Tare (g) 6.45 7.06
Dry Soil (g) 5.92 6.75
Liquid Limit
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 15.14 15.03 15.46
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 12.71 12.49 12.66
Water Loss (g) 2.43 2.54 2.80
Tare (g) 7.47 7.15 7.08
Dry Soil (g) 5.24 5.34 5.58
Water Content, w (%) 46.37 47.57 50.18
One-Point LL (%) 47

50.5 60
50
50 U-Line
49.5
A-Line
49 CH
40
Water content (%)
Plastic Index (PI)
48.5
48 30
47.5 MH
LL = 47
47 20
CL
46.5
10
46 CL-ML ML
45.5 0
10 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(ASTM D4318) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
By: BRR
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 13.86 14.23
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 12.81 13.12
Tare (g) 7.06 7.10
Dry Soil (g) 5.75 6.02
Liquid Limit
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 13.47 13.87 15.23
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 11.39 11.60 12.42
Water Loss (g) 2.08 2.27 2.81
Tare (g) 7.07 7.07 7.05
Dry Soil (g) 4.32 4.53 5.37
Water Content, w (%) 48.15 50.11 52.33
One-Point LL (%) 50

53 60
52.5 Flow Curve Plasticity Chart
50 U-Line
52
51.5 A-Line
CH
40
Water content (%)
51
Plastic Index (PI)
50.5
LL = 50 30
50
MH
49.5
20
49 CL
48.5 10
48 CL-ML ML
47.5 0
10 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(ASTM D4318) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
By: BRR
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 13.37 13.88
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 12.34 12.81
Tare (g) 7.04 7.37
Dry Soil (g) 5.30 5.44
Liquid Limit
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 14.65 15.06 13.31
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 12.23 12.42 11.11
Water Loss (g) 2.42 2.64 2.20
Tare (g) 7.44 7.34 7.10
Dry Soil (g) 4.79 5.08 4.01
Water Content, w (%) 50.52 51.97 54.86

56 60
55 50 U-Line
A-Line
54 CH
40
Water content (%)
Plastic Index (PI)
53 30
MH
52 20
CL
LL = 51
51 10
CL-ML ML
50 0
10 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Location: North Ogden, Weber Co. UT Depth: 0.5-5'
Date: 9/20/2018 Description: Brown clayey gravel with sand
By: JWB
Water content data C.F.(+3/4") S.F.(-3/4")
Yes Split: Moist soil + tare (g): 3078.30 1557.08
3/4" Split sieve: Dry soil + tare (g): 3062.06 1434.96
Moist Dry Tare (g): 446.44 221.93
Total sample wt. (g): 24253.10 22502.55 Water content (%): 0.6 10.1
+3/4" Coarse fraction (g): 5484.10 5450.26
-3/4" Split fraction (g): 1335.15 1213.03
Split fraction: 0.758
Accum. Grain Size Percent

Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
8" - 200 -
6" - 150 -
4" - 100 100.0
3" 956.86 75 95.7
1.5" 3503.85 37.5 84.4
3/4" 5450.26 19 75.8 Split
3/8" 99.04 9.5 69.6
No.4 212.80 4.75 62.5
No.10 359.35 2 53.3
No.20 495.02 0.85 44.9
No.40 586.59 0.425 39.1
No.60 645.00 0.25 35.5
No.100 693.75 0.15 32.4
No.140 722.09 0.106 30.7
No.200 750.41 0.075 28.9
3 in 3/4 in No.4 No.10 No.40 No.200
100
Gravel (%): 37.5
90 Sand (%): 33.6
Fines (%): 28.9
80
70
Percent finer by weight
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Entered by:___________ Grain size (mm)
Reviewed:___________ Z:\PROJECTS\01821_Weber_County\002_North_Ogden_Canyon\[GSDv2.xlsx]1
(ASTM D6913) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Date: 9/17/2018 Description: Brown clayey sand with gravel
By: DKS
Moist Dry Tare (g): 326.59 409.77
-3/4" Split fraction (g): 1383.03 1215.96

8" - 200 -
6" - 150 -
4" - 100 -
3" - 75 100.0
1.5" 452.02 37.5 97.3
3/4" 1583.20 19 90.6 Split
3/8" 105.68 9.5 82.7
No.4 208.87 4.75 75.1
No.10 308.79 2 67.6
No.20 378.99 0.85 62.4
No.40 434.68 0.425 58.2
No.60 480.79 0.25 54.8
No.100 535.93 0.15 50.7
No.140 575.93 0.106 47.7
No.200 616.39 0.075 44.7
3 in 3/4 in No.4 No.10 No.40 No.200
100
Gravel (%): 24.9
90 Sand (%): 30.4
Fines (%): 44.7
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
(ASTM D6913) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Location: North Ogden, Weber Co. UT Depth: 0.5-2.5'
By: JWB
Moist Dry Tare (g): 331.41 126.79
-3/8" Split fraction (g): 375.12 359.88

8" - 200 -
6" - 150 -
4" - 100 -
3" - 75 -
1.5" - 37.5 100.0
3/4" 501.37 19 96.0
3/8" 2158.99 9.5 82.6 Split
No.4 63.54 4.75 68.0
No.10 140.60 2 50.3
No.20 195.09 0.85 37.8
No.40 227.40 0.425 30.4
No.60 246.78 0.25 26.0
No.100 265.53 0.15 21.7
No.140 273.79 0.106 19.8
No.200 282.06 0.075 17.9
3 in 3/4 in No.4 No.10 No.40 No.200
100
Gravel (%): 32.0
90 Sand (%): 50.2
Fines (%): 17.9
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
(ASTM D6913) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Date: 9/18/2018 Description: Grey/brown clayey gravel with sand
By: JAB
Split: Yes Moist soil + tare (g): 1708.43 371.21
Split sieve: 3/8" Dry soil + tare (g): 1700.17 365.58
Moist Dry Tare (g): 310.32 128.56
-3/8" Split fraction (g): 242.65 237.02

8" - 200 -
6" - 150 -
4" - 100 -
3" - 75 100.0
1.5" 82.90 37.5 97.7
3/4" 794.86 19 77.8
3/8" 1358.76 9.5 62.0 Split
No.4 37.79 4.75 52.1
No.10 85.28 2 39.7
No.20 117.79 0.85 31.2
No.40 136.59 0.425 26.3
No.60 147.78 0.25 23.4
No.100 157.70 0.15 20.8
No.140 163.49 0.106 19.2
No.200 168.83 0.075 17.8
3 in 3/4 in No.4 No.10 No.40 No.200
100
Gravel (%): 47.9
90 Sand (%): 34.3
Fines (%): 17.8
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
(ASTM D6913) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Date: 9/25/2018 Description: Brown clay
By: BRR
Water content data
Split: No Moist soil + tare (g): - 263.40
- Dry soil + tare (g): - 234.30
Moist Dry Tare (g): - 123.42
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00

8" - 200 -
6" - 150 -
4" - 100 -
3" - 75 -
1.5" - 37.5 -
3/4" - 19 -
3/8" - 9.5 100.0
No.4 0.46 4.75 99.6
No.10 1.27 2 98.9
No.20 3.46 0.85 96.9
No.40 6.72 0.425 93.9
No.60 10.58 0.25 90.5
No.100 16.73 0.15 84.9
No.140 20.92 0.106 81.1
No.200 25.06 0.075 77.4
3 in 3/4 in No.4 No.10 No.40 No.200
100
Gravel (%): 0.4
90 Sand (%): 22.2
Fines (%): 77.4
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
(ASTM D6913) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Date: 9/25/2018 Description: Brown clayey gravel with sand
By: JP
Moist Dry Tare (g): 315.80 123.62
-3/8" Split fraction (g): 266.46 239.71

8" - 200 -
6" - 150 -
4" - 100 -
3" - 75 100.0
1.5" 243.22 37.5 92.6
3/4" 514.71 19 84.3
3/8" 932.34 9.5 71.5 Split
No.4 31.23 4.75 62.2
No.10 62.39 2 52.9
No.20 83.32 0.85 46.7
No.40 97.70 0.425 42.4
No.60 107.62 0.25 39.4
No.100 120.29 0.15 35.6
No.140 128.73 0.106 33.1
No.200 139.88 0.075 29.8
3 in 3/4 in No.4 No.10 No.40 No.200
100
Gravel (%): 37.8
90 Sand (%): 32.4
Fines (%): 29.8
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
(ASTM D6913) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
By: BRR
Moist Dry Tare (g): 299.55 122.08
-3/8" Split fraction (g): 274.54 229.01

8" - 200 -
6" - 150 -
4" - 100 -
3" - 75 -
1.5" - 37.5 100.0
3/4" 258.03 19 89.6
3/8" 486.70 9.5 80.4 Split
No.4 8.55 4.75 77.4
No.10 20.09 2 73.4
No.20 30.78 0.85 69.6
No.40 45.41 0.425 64.5
No.60 60.26 0.25 59.3
No.100 78.31 0.15 52.9
No.140 91.01 0.106 48.5
No.200 102.54 0.075 44.4
3 in 3/4 in No.4 No.10 No.40 No.200
100
Gravel (%): 22.6
90 Sand (%): 33.0
Fines (%): 44.4
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
(ASTM D6913) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Date: 9/25/2018 Description: Brown sandy clay with gravel
By: BRR
Moist Dry Tare (g): 126.84 127.93
-3/8" Split fraction (g): 238.93 205.94

8" - 200 -
6" - 150 -
4" - 100 -
3" - 75 -
1.5" - 37.5 100.0
3/4" 54.68 19 91.6
3/8" 83.46 9.5 87.2 Split
No.4 12.28 4.75 82.0
No.10 27.32 2 75.7
No.20 43.60 0.85 68.8
No.40 54.58 0.425 64.1
No.60 62.38 0.25 60.8
No.100 69.76 0.15 57.7
No.140 74.03 0.106 55.9
No.200 78.19 0.075 54.1
3 in 3/4 in No.4 No.10 No.40 No.200
100
Gravel (%): 18.0
90 Sand (%): 27.9
Fines (%): 54.1
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
(ASTM D6913) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Date: 9/26/2018 Description: Brown sandy clay
By: EH
Water content data
Split: No Moist soil + tare (g): - 1120.36
- Dry soil + tare (g): - 983.15
Moist Dry Tare (g): - 219.40
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00

8" - 200 -
6" - 150 -
4" - 100 -
3" - 75 -
1.5" - 37.5 100.0
3/4" 39.77 19 94.8
3/8" 67.87 9.5 91.1
No.4 100.94 4.75 86.8
No.10 146.67 2 80.8
No.20 192.50 0.85 74.8
No.40 232.01 0.425 69.6
No.60 260.40 0.25 65.9
No.100 284.81 0.15 62.7
No.140 296.84 0.106 61.1
No.200 308.30 0.075 59.6
3 in 3/4 in No.4 No.10 No.40 No.200
100
Gravel (%): 13.2
90 Sand (%): 27.2
Fines (%): 59.6
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil
(ASTM D698 / D1557) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Location: North Ogden, Weber Co. UT Depth: 0.5-5.0' and 5.0-10.5'
Date: 9/18/2018 Sample Description: Brown clayey gravel with sand
By: JAB/JWB Engineering Classification: Not requested
As-received water content (%): Not requested
Method: ASTM D698 C Preparation method: Moist
Mold Id. Inc 4 Rammer: Mechanical-sector face
Mold volume (ft3): 0.0749 Rock Correction: Yes * See results below
Percent fraction retained, Pc (%) 21.2
Optimum water content (%): 12.2 Percent fraction passing, Pf (%) 78.8
Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): 121.5
Point Number As Is -2% +2% +4% +6%
Wt. Sample + Mold (g) 9707.6 9473.5 10058.8 10189.7 10121.6
Wt. of Mold (g) 5575.9 5575.9 5575.9 5575.9 5575.9
Wet Unit Wt., Jm (pcf) 121.5 114.7 131.9 135.7 133.7
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 1373.77 1650.73 1981.74 2346.25 2664.75
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 1284.48 1556.49 1807.25 2100.60 2368.02
Tare (g) 222.22 223.54 215.38 219.38 408.88
Water Content, w (%) 8.4 7.1 11.0 13.1 15.1
Dry Unit Wt., Jd (pcf) 112.1 107.1 118.9 120.1 116.1
*Correction of Unit Weight and Water Content for Soils Containing Oversize Particles
(ASTM D4718) Oversized fraction, +3/4-in. (%): 21.2
Corrected water content (%): 9.9 Water content, +3/4-in. (%): 1.4
Corrected dry unit weight (pcf): 128.7 Sieve for oversized fraction: 3/4-in.
Bulk specific gravity, Gs: 2.65
130
Maximum dry unit weight and
optimum water content
125
Maximum dry unit ZAVL Gs = 2.7

Dry unit weight (pcf)
120 weight = 121.5 (pcf)

ZAVL Gs = 2.6
115
110
105
100
5 10 15 20
Entered by:___________ Water content (%)
Reviewed:___________ Z:\PROJECTS\01821_Weber_County\002_North_Ogden_Canyon\[PROCTORv3.xlsm]1
Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil
(ASTM D698 / D1557) © IGES 2004, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Location: North Ogden, Weber Co. UT Depth: 0.5-5.0'
Date: 9/18/2018 Sample Description: Brown clayey sand with gravel
By: JAB/JWB Engineering Classification: Not requested
As-received water content (%): Not requested
Method: ASTM D698 C Preparation method: Moist
Mold Id. Inc 7 Rammer: Mechanical-sector face
Mold volume (ft3): 0.0749 Rock Correction: Yes * See results below
Percent fraction retained, Pc (%) 9.4
Optimum water content (%): 12.7 Percent fraction passing, Pf (%) 90.6
Maximum dry unit weight (pcf): 121.8
Point Number As Is +2% +4% +6% +8%
Wt. Sample + Mold (g) 10642.5 10915.9 11142.8 11109.9 11025.5
Wt. of Mold (g) 6476.6 6476.6 6476.6 6476.6 6476.6
Wet Unit Wt., Jm (pcf) 122.6 130.6 137.3 136.3 133.8
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 2157.89 2131.37 2122.62 2159.46 2235.60
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 2022.66 1954.35 1908.79 1927.21 1975.59
Tare (g) 328.03 221.96 223.39 309.43 409.81
Water Content, w (%) 8.0 10.2 12.7 14.4 16.6
Dry Unit Wt., Jd (pcf) 113.5 118.5 121.8 119.2 114.8
*Correction of Unit Weight and Water Content for Soils Containing Oversize Particles
(ASTM D4718) Oversized fraction, +3/4-in. (%): 9.4
Corrected water content (%): 11.7 Water content, +3/4-in. (%): 1.8
Corrected dry unit weight (pcf): 124.9 Sieve for oversized fraction: 3/4-in.
Bulk specific gravity, Gs: 2.65
130
Maximum dry unit weight and
128
optimum water content
126
124
Dry unit weight (pcf)
ZAVL Gs = 2.8
122
Maximum dry unit
120 weight = 121.8 (pcf)
ZAVL Gs = 2.7
118
116
114
112
110
5 10 15 20
Entered by:___________ Water content (%)
Reviewed:___________ Z:\PROJECTS\01821_Weber_County\002_North_Ogden_Canyon\[PROCTORv3.xlsm]2
California Bearing Ratio
(ASTM D 1883)
© IGES 2004, 2018

Number: 01821-002 Sample:
Location: North Ogden, Weber Co. UT Depth: 0.5-5' & 5-10'
Date: 9/26/2018 Original Method: ASTM D698 C
By: JWB Engineering Classification: Not requested
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 121.5 Condition of Sample: Soaked
Optimum Water Content (%): 12.2 Scalp and Replace: No
Relative Compaction (%): 100.5
0.1 in. Corrected CBR (%): 12.9
As Compacted Data Before After
Mold Id. CBR-1 Wet Soil + Tare (g) 1492.22 1668.83
Wt. of Mold + Sample (g) 11933.5 Dry Soil + Tare (g) 1386.61 1517.49
Wt. of Mold (g) 7291.4 Tare (g) 464.55 310.19
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 122.1 Water Content (%) 11.5 12.5
After Soaking Data Average Top 1 in.
Wt. of Mold + Sample (g) 12013.3 Wet Soil + Tare (g) 1691.72 774.64
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 121.5 Dry Soil + Tare (g) 1521.9 712.79
Tare (g) 223.52 294.24
Water Content (%) 13.1 14.8
Swell Data
Date Time Dial Surcharge (psf) 50
9/21/2018 13:49 0.309 Swell (%) 0.50
9/25/2018 13:41 0.332 Soaking Period (hr) 96
350
Penetration Data Piston ID CBR T1
Load Penetration Curve
Zero load (lb) = 0
0.1 in. Corrected CBR
Area of Piston (in2) = 3.0 300 0.2 in. Corrected CBR
Penetration Raw Load Piston Stress Std. Stress
(in.) (lb) (psi) (psi)
250
Stress on piston (psi)
0.000 0 0
0.025 44 15
0.050 136 45 200
0.075 251 84
0.100 340 113 1000
0.125 418 139 1125 150
0.150 488 163 1250
0.175 547 182 1375
100
0.200 581 194 1500
0.300 751 251 1900
0.400 850 284 2300 50
0.500 923 308 2600
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Penetration (in)
Entered By:___________
Reviewed:___________ Z:\PROJECTS\01821_Weber_County\002_North_Ogden_Canyon\[CBRv4.xlsm]1
California Bearing Ratio
(ASTM D 1883)
© IGES 2004, 2018

Number: 01821-002 Sample:
Date: 9/26/2018 Original Method: ASTM D698 C
By: JWB Engineering Classification: Not requested
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 121.8 Condition of Sample: Soaked
Optimum Water Content (%): 12.7 Scalp and Replace: No
Relative Compaction (%): 100.5
As Compacted Data Before After
Mold Id. E Wet Soil + Tare (g) 1354.99 1914.75
Wt. of Mold + Sample (g) 11907.9 Dry Soil + Tare (g) 1241.43 1732.20
Wt. of Mold (g) 7226.2 Tare (g) 310.44 332.25
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 122.4 Water Content (%) 12.2 13.0
After Soaking Data Average Top 1 in.
Wt. of Mold + Sample (g) 11971.5 Wet Soil + Tare (g) 1671.84 535.22
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 122.3 Dry Soil + Tare (g) 1497.24 483.1
Tare (g) 222.24 120.85
Water Content (%) 13.7 14.4
Swell Data
Date Time Dial Surcharge (psf) 50
9/21/2018 09:50 0.556 Swell (%) 0.09
9/25/2018 09:45 0.56 Soaking Period (hr) 96
350
Penetration Data Piston ID CBR T1
Load Penetration Curve
Zero load (lb) = 0
0.1 in. Corrected CBR
Area of Piston (in2) = 3.0 300 0.2 in. Corrected CBR
Penetration Raw Load Piston Stress Std. Stress
(in.) (lb) (psi) (psi)
250
Stress on piston (psi)
0.000 0 0
0.025 49 16
0.050 169 56 200
0.075 281 94
0.100 364 121 1000
0.125 434 145 1125 150
0.150 492 164 1250
0.175 545 182 1375
100
0.200 594 198 1500
0.300 754 251 1900
0.400 868 290 2300 50
0.500 967 322 2600
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Penetration (in)
Entered By:___________
Reviewed:___________ Z:\PROJECTS\01821_Weber_County\002_North_Ogden_Canyon\[CBRv4.xlsm]2
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D2850) © IGES 2015, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Location: North Ogden, Weber County, UT Depth: 5.5'
Date: 9/26/2018 Sample Description: Brown sandy clay with gravel
By: EH Sample type: Undisturbed
Specific gravity, Gs 2.70 Assumed

Sample height, H (in.) 5.274
Sample diameter, D (in.) 2.401
3
Sample volume, V (ft ) 0.0138 Wet soil + tare (g) 199.29
Wt. rings + wet soil (g) 1462.84 Dry soil + tare (g) 188.80
Wt. rings/tare (g) 757.70 Tare (g) 121.48
Moist soil, Ws (g) 705.14 Water content, w (%) 15.6
Moist unit wt., Jm (pcf) 112.5 Confining stress,V3 (psf) 500
Dry unit wt., Jd (pcf) 97.3 Shear rate (in/min) 0.0158
Saturation (%) 57.3 Strain at failure, Hf (%) 19.51
Void ratio, e 0.73 Deviator stress at failure, V1-V3)f (psf) 1572
Axial Vd Q Shear stress at failure, qf = V1-V3)f/2 (psf) 786
Strain V1-V3 1/2 Vd
(%) (psf) (psf) 1600
0.00 0.0 0.0
0.05 152.3 76.1
0.10 183.5 91.8 1572
0.15 212.7 106.4
0.20 238.5 119.2 1400
0.25 260.3 130.2
0.30 282.8 141.4 Maximum data point 54
0.40 304.1 152.1 Strain at max deviator stress 19.509383
0.50 322.8 161.4 Max deviator stress 1571.97
1.25 493.2 246.6
1200 Max shear stress 785.98395
1.50 593.3 296.7
1.75 673.9 336.9
2.00 740.7 370.3
Deviator stress, V1-V3 (psf)
2.25 806.1 403.0

2.50 858.6 429.3
2.75 910.4 455.2 1000
3.00 946.8 473.4
3.25 974.0 487.0
3.50 1005.3 502.7
3.75 1034.1 517.0
4.00 1063.0 531.5 800
4.25 1086.2 543.1
4.50 1103.5 551.7
4.75 1129.2 564.6
5.00 1139.0 569.5
5.50 1170.7 585.3
6.00 1200.1 600.0
600
6.50 1225.0 612.5
7.00 1266.3 633.1
7.50 1290.5 645.2
8.00 1314.9 657.4
8.50 1334.6 667.3 400
9.01 1350.5 675.3
9.51 1350.8 675.4
10.01 1363.8 681.9
10.51 1382.1 691.0
11.00 1394.8 697.4 200
11.51 1399.8 699.9
12.01 1416.1 708.0
12.51 1438.2 719.1
13.01 1453.4 726.7
13.51 1448.6 724.3 0
14.01 1462.0 731.0
14.51 1482.3 741.1 0 5 10 15 20
15.01 1504.8 752.4
15.51 1508.9 754.5 Axial strain (%)
16.01 1513.2 756.6
16.51 1530.9 765.4
17.01 1542.8 771.4
17.51 1552.7 776.3
18.01 1551.2 775.6
18.51 1548.2 774.1
19.01 1564.3 782.2
19.51 1572.0 786.0
Reviewed:___________ Z:\PROJECTS\01821_Weber_County\002_North_Ogden_Canyon\[UU_GTv1.xlsm]1
(ASTM D2850) © IGES 2015, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Location: North Ogden, Weber County, UT Depth: 15.5'
Date: 9/26/2018 Sample Description: Brown lean clay

3
Strain V1-V3 1/2 Vd
(%) (psf) (psf) 9000
0.00 0.0 0.0
0.05 -2.2 -1.1
0.10 161.8 80.9 8900
0.15 362.7 181.3
0.20 528.5 264.2 8000
0.25 676.7 338.3
0.30 808.4 404.2 Maximum data point 40
0.40 1056.8 528.4 7000 Max deviator stress 8899.66
0.45 1162.0 581.0 Max shear stress 4449.8323
0.50 1276.6 638.3
0.75 1571.0 785.5
1.00 2023.4 1011.7
6000
1.25 2808.2 1404.1

1.50 3444.3 1722.1
1.75 3945.6 1972.8
2.00 4367.9 2183.9
2.25 4737.1 2368.6
2.50 5088.9 2544.5 5000
2.75 5409.6 2704.8
3.01 5725.1 2862.5
3.26 6012.3 3006.1
3.51 6265.1 3132.6
3.76 6502.3 3251.2
4000
4.01 6729.2 3364.6
4.26 6920.5 3460.2
4.51 7114.8 3557.4
4.76 7283.4 3641.7 3000
5.01 7440.6 3720.3
5.51 7722.1 3861.0
6.01 7968.0 3984.0
6.51 8174.1 4087.0
7.01 8341.2 4170.6 2000
7.51 8492.0 4246.0
8.01 8610.5 4305.3
8.51 8698.1 4349.1
9.01 8785.6 4392.8
9.51 8837.8 4418.9 1000
10.01 8875.0 4437.5
10.51 8899.7 4449.8
11.01 8898.6 4449.3
11.51 8887.7 4443.8 0
12.01 8839.0 4419.5
12.51 8762.8 4381.4 0 5 10 15 20
13.01 8680.0 4340.0
13.51 8556.7 4278.4 Axial strain (%)
14.01 8426.8 4213.4
14.51 8249.4 4124.7
15.01 7975.8 3987.9
15.51 7778.4 3889.2
16.01 7671.4 3835.7
16.51 7644.4 3822.2
17.01 7637.0 3818.5
17.51 7627.8 3813.9
18.01 7619.5 3809.8
18.51 7588.8 3794.4
19.01 7578.8 3789.4
19.51 7578.3 3789.2
19.98 7569.7 3784.9
(ASTM D2850) © IGES 2015, 2018

No: 01821-002 Sample:
Location: North Ogden, Weber County, UT Depth: 25.5
Date: 9/26/2018 Sample Description: Brown sandy clay

3
Strain V1-V3 1/2 Vd
(%) (psf) (psf) 12000
0.00 0.0 0.0
0.06 520.2 260.1
0.11 801.0 400.5 11714
0.16 957.6 478.8
0.21 1332.6 666.3
0.26 1621.2 810.6
0.31 1966.9 983.5 10000 Maximum data point 42
0.41 2587.1 1293.6 Max deviator stress 11713.81
0.46 2874.4 1437.2 Max shear stress 5856.9041
0.51 3152.5 1576.3
0.76 4322.7 2161.4
1.01 5228.3 2614.2
8000
1.26 5943.1 2971.5

1.51 6545.6 3272.8
1.76 7066.4 3533.2
2.01 7507.6 3753.8
2.26 7913.2 3956.6
2.51 8267.8 4133.9
2.76 8590.7 4295.3
3.01 8876.1 4438.0 6000
3.26 9132.3 4566.2
3.51 9352.7 4676.3
3.76 9561.2 4780.6
4.01 9755.3 4877.6
4.26 9927.1 4963.5
4.51 10082.7 5041.3
4.76 10234.4 5117.2 4000
5.01 10363.2 5181.6
5.51 10605.0 5302.5
6.02 10810.9 5405.5
6.51 10987.5 5493.8
7.01 11142.6 5571.3
7.51 11269.3 5634.7
8.01 11357.5 5678.7 2000
8.52 11446.7 5723.4
9.02 11528.4 5764.2
9.52 11583.4 5791.7
10.02 11636.6 5818.3
10.52 11653.6 5826.8
11.02 11688.0 5844.0
11.52 11713.8 5856.9 0
12.02 11671.4 5835.7
12.52 11635.7 5817.9 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
13.02 11588.1 5794.1
13.52 11520.8 5760.4 Axial strain (%)
14.02 11459.7 5729.8
14.52 11394.7 5697.3
15.02 11311.8 5655.9
15.52 11234.2 5617.1
16.02 11151.2 5575.6
16.10 11147.3 5573.7
16.52 11064.9 5532.4
17.02 10983.6 5491.8
17.52 10957.6 5478.8

APPENDIX D
No Water
Cohesion
UnitWeight Cohesion
MaterialName Color StrengthType Change
(lbs/3) (psf)
(psf/)
6000
Bedrock 140 Undrained 5500 110
FatClay 128 Undrained 4400 110

1.3
LeanCLAYandSC 110 Undrained 220 80
5950
5900
250.00 lbs/ft2
5850
5800
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Project
Analysis Description
Road Instability - 212+65.63 212+65.63
Drawn By Scale Company
JMG 1:500 IGES, Inc
Date File Name
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.011
9-24-18 212.65.63 - Su from surface.slmd
No Water
UnitWeight Cohesion Phi

MaterialName Color
(lbs/3) (psf) (deg)
6000
Bedrock 140 4000
FatClay 128 550 20
LeanCLAYandSC 110 200 24.5
FillCL 110 200 24.5
5950
1.4
5900
250.00 lbs/ft2
5850
5800
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Project
JMG 1:500 IGES, Inc
Date File Name
9-24-18 212.65.63.slmd
No Water
Cohesion
MaterialName Color StrengthType Change
(lbs/3) (psf) (deg)
(psf/)
6000
FatClay 128 Undrained 4400 110
LeanCLAYandSC 110 Undrained 220 80 1.3
FillCL 110 MohrCoulomb 200 24.5
5950
5900
250.00 lbs/ft2
5850
5800
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Project
JMG 1:500 IGES, Inc
Date File Name
9-24-18 212.65.63.slmd
Saturated Fill
Sat.Unit Cohesion
UnitWeight Cohesion
MaterialName Color Weight StrengthType Change
(lbs/3) (psf)
(lbs/3) (psf/)
6000
FatClay 128 128 Undrained 4400 110
LeanCLAYandSC 110 120 Undrained 220 80

1.2
5950
W
5900
250.00 lbs/ft2
5850
W
5800
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Project
JMG 1:500 IGES, Inc
Date File Name
9-24-18 212.65.63 - Su from surface.slmd
Saturated Fill
Sat.Unit
MaterialName Color Weight
(lbs/3) (psf) (deg)
(lbs/3)
6000
Bedrock 140 4000
FatClay 128 128 550 20
LeanCLAYandSC 110 120 200 24.5
FillCL 110 120 200 24.5
5950
W
1.0
5900
250.00 lbs/ft2
5850
W
5800
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Project
JMG 1:500 IGES, Inc
Date File Name
9-24-18 212.65.63.slmd
Saturated Fill
Sat.Unit Cohesion
MaterialName Color Weight StrengthType Change
(lbs/3) (psf) (deg)
(lbs/3) (psf/)
6000
FatClay 128 128 Undrained 4400 110
LeanCLAYandSC 110 120 Undrained 220 80

1.3
FillCL 110 120 MohrCoulomb 200 24.5
5950
W
5900
250.00 lbs/ft2
5850
W
5800
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Project
JMG 1:500 IGES, Inc
Date File Name
9-24-18 212.65.63.slmd
Unified Hazard Tool Page 1 of 7
Unified Hazard Tool
code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design Maps web tools (e.g.,
the International Building Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Standard). The values returned
by the two applications are not identical.
ʫ Input
Edition Spectral Period
Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 Peak ground acceleration
Latitude Time Horizon

Decimal degrees Return period in years
41.33231 475
Longitude
Decimal degrees, negative values for western long…
-111.89154
Site Class
760 m/s (B/C boundary)
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 9/25/2018
ʫ Hazard Curve
Hazard Curves Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum
2.2
1e-1
2.0
1e-2
1.8
1e-3
1.6
1e-4
1.4
1e-5
1.2
1e-6
1.0
1e-7
0.8
1e-8
0.6
1e-9 Spectral Period (s): PGA
0.4 Ground Motion (g): 0.2096
1e-10
0.2
1e-11
0.0
1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Ground Motion (g) Spectral Period (s)
Component Curves for Peak ground acceleration
1e-1
1e-2
1e-3
1e-4
1e-5
1e-6
1e-7
1e-8
1e-9
1e-10
1e-2 1e-1 1e+0
Ground Motion (g)
View Raw Data
ʫ Deaggregation
Component
Total
İ = (- .. -2.5)
İ = [-2.5 .. -2)
İ = [-2 .. -1.5)
İ = [-1.5 .. -1)
İ = [-1 .. -0.5)
İ = [-0.5 .. 0)
İ = [0 .. 0.5)
İ = [0.5 .. 1)
İ = [1 .. 1.5)
İ = [1.5 .. 2)
İ = [2 .. 2.5)
İ = [2.5 .. +)
Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total
Deaggregation targets
Return period: 475 yrs

Exceedance rate: 0.0021052632 yrͼ¹
PGA ground motion: 0.20956202 g
Recovered targets
Return period: 475.43905 yrs

Totals
Binned: 100 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.82 %
Mean (for all sources)
r: 9.9 km
m: 6.7
İ΁: -0.15 ı
Mode (largest r-m bin)
r: 6.29 km
m: 6.91
İ΁: -0.55 ı
Contribution: 21.39 %
Mode (largest İ΁ bin)
4 48 k
Deaggregation Contributors
Source Set ʷ Source Type r m İ0 lon lat az %
Geologic Model Full Rupture Fault 37.63

Wasatch - Brigham City section 50 5.84 6.90 -0.56 111.961°W 41.333°N 271.15 10.70
Wasatch - Weber section 50 3.90 7.11 -0.89 111.941°W 41.337°N 276.80 10.38
East Cache 50 13.00 7.27 -0.23 111.765°W 41.421°N 47.06 1.10
Geologic Model Partial Rupture Fault 20.26

Wasatch 50 7.96 6.88 -0.39 111.941°W 41.337°N 276.97 4.48
Wasatch - Brigham City section 50 11.28 6.72 0.11 111.961°W 41.333°N 271.15 3.17
Wasatch 65 7.67 6.88 -0.43 111.941°W 41.337°N 276.97 1.53
Wasatch 35 8.31 6.89 -0.35 111.941°W 41.337°N 276.97 1.43
EXTmap_2014_fixSm.ch.in (opt) Grid 10.05

PointSourceFinite: -111.892, 41.364 6.19 5.72 -0.05 111.892°W 41.364°N 0.00 1.53
PointSourceFinite: -111.892, 41.400 8.64 5.84 0.26 111.892°W 41.400°N 0.00 1.05
EXTmap_2014_adSm.ch.in (opt) Grid 6.39
Bird Model Full Rupture Fault 4.91

Zeng Model Full Rupture Fault 4.74

EXTmap_2014_fixSm.gr.in (opt) Grid 4.72
EXTmap_2014_adSm.gr.in (opt) Grid 3.00
Bird Model Partial Rupture Fault 2.20
Zeng Model Partial Rupture Fault 2.15
EXTmap_2014_fixSm_M8.in (opt) Grid 1.92
EXTmap_2014_adSm_M8.in (opt) Grid 1.22
Unified Hazard Tool
code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design Maps web tools (e.g.,
the International Building Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Standard). The values returned
by the two applications are not identical.
ʫ Input
Edition Spectral Period
Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 Peak ground acceleration
Latitude Time Horizon

Decimal degrees Return period in years
41.33231 2475
Longitude
Decimal degrees, negative values for western long…
-111.89154
Site Class
760 m/s (B/C boundary)
ʫ Hazard Curve
Hazard Curves Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum
2.2
1e-1
2.0
1e-2
1.8
1e-3
1.6
1e-4
1.4
1e-5
1.2
1e-6
1.0
1e-7
0.8
1e-8
0.6
1e-9
0.4 Spectral Period (s): PGA
1e-10
0.2 Ground Motion (g): 0.5413
1e-11
0.0
1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Ground Motion (g) Spectral Period (s)
Component Curves for Peak ground acceleration
1e-1
1e-2
1e-3
1e-4
1e-5
1e-6
1e-7
1e-8
1e-9
1e-10
1e-2 1e-1 1e+0
Ground Motion (g)
View Raw Data
ʫ Deaggregation
Component
Total
İ = (- .. -2.5)
İ = [-2.5 .. -2)
İ = [-2 .. -1.5)
İ = [-1.5 .. -1)
İ = [-1 .. -0.5)
İ = [-0.5 .. 0)
İ = [0 .. 0.5)
İ = [0.5 .. 1)
İ = [1 .. 1.5)
İ = [1.5 .. 2)
İ = [2 .. 2.5)
İ = [2.5 .. +)
Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total
Deaggregation targets
Return period: 2475 yrs

PGA ground motion: 0.54131992 g
Recovered targets
Return period: 2574.6829 yrs

Totals
Binned: 100 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.44 %
Mean (for all sources)
r: 6.04 km
m: 6.89
İ΁: 0.91 ı
Mode (largest r-m bin)
r: 4.82 km
m: 7.09
İ΁: 0.73 ı
Contribution: 27.75 %
Mode (largest İ΁ bin)
4 33 k
Deaggregation Contributors
Source Set ʷ Source Type r m İ0 lon lat az %
Geologic Model Full Rupture Fault 51.54

Wasatch - Weber section 50 3.90 7.11 0.62 111.941°W 41.337°N 276.80 17.10
Geologic Model Partial Rupture Fault 18.09

Wasatch 50 5.49 6.93 0.85 111.941°W 41.337°N 276.97 5.14
Wasatch 65 5.30 6.92 0.83 111.941°W 41.337°N 276.97 1.81
Wasatch 35 5.60 6.95 0.87 111.941°W 41.337°N 276.97 1.59
Bird Model Full Rupture Fault 6.50

Zeng Model Full Rupture Fault 6.44

EXTmap_2014_fixSm.ch.in (opt) Grid 4.86

PointSourceFinite: -111.892, 41.364 5.78 5.96 1.11 111.892°W 41.364°N 0.00 1.47
EXTmap_2014_adSm.ch.in (opt) Grid 3.11
EXTmap_2014_fixSm.gr.in (opt) Grid 2.26
Zeng Model Partial Rupture Fault 1.82
Bird Model Partial Rupture Fault 1.78
EXTmap_2014_adSm.gr.in (opt) Grid 1.45

APPENDIX E
WinPAS
Pavement Thickness Design According to
1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavements Structures
American Concrete Pavement Association
Flexible Design Inputs
Project Name: N Ogden Road

Route:
Location: N Ogden
Owner/Agency: Weber County
Design Engineer:
Flexible Pavement Design/Evaluation
Structural Number 4.05 Subgrade Resilient Modulus 5,014.50 psi

Total Flexible ESALs 2,107,055 Initial Serviceability 4.20
Reliability 89.24 percent Terminal Serviceability 2.00
Overall Standard Deviation 0.35
Layer Pavement Design/Evaluation
Layer Layer Drainage Layer Layer

Material Coefficient Coefficient Thickness SN
Asphalt Cement Concrete 0.40 1.00 4.50 1.80
Graded Stone Base 0.12 1.00 6.00 0.72
Granular Subbase 0.10 0.90 17.00 1.53
SN 4.05
Wednesday, October 3, 2018 9:36:48AM Engineer:JMG

WinPAS 12
Pavement Thickness Design According to
1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavements Structures
American Concrete Pavement Association
ESAL Data by Vehicle Type

Project Name: N Ogden Road
Route:
Location: N Ogden
Owner/Agency: Weber County
Design Engineer:
Traffic Factor Traffic Input by
Estimated Rigid Thickness 6.00 inches Design Lane

Estimated Structural Number 4.1 Design Lane Distribution 0.00 percent
Terminal Serviceability 1.5 Directional Distribution 0.00 percent
Design Life 20 years
Annual Growth Rate 0.00 percent
Traffic Input by Day
Vehicle Axle Load Axle Type Number Vehicle Axle Load Axle Type Number
2.00 Single 0.00 Single
0.00 Single 3,325 0.00 Single 0
0.00 Single 0 0.00 Single 0

32.00 Tandem 0.00 Single
32.00 Tandem 175 0.00 Single
0.00 Single
0.00 Single 0
Total Rigid ESALs 3,921,320 Total Flexible ESALs 2,107,055
Wednesday, October 3, 2018 9:37:24AM Engineer: JMG

Subgrade Stabilization Design Analysis
Thick Asphalt Pavement - TWH Edition - 20180817
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS PAVEMENT SOIL PROPERTIES
Property Value Property Value

Axle Load (kips) 18 Aggregate Fill CBR (%) 20
Tire Pressure (psi) 80 Soaked Subgrade CBR (%) 4
Axle Passes (Each) 1500
Maximum Rut Depth (in) 1.5 Aggregate fill particle size: D50 <= 27mm
Aggregate Fill Thickness (in) Aggregate Fill Thickness Savings (in)

Geosynthetic
Calculated Required (in) (%)
Unstabilized 17.0 17 N/A N/A
Geotextile 11.1 12 5 29
90
80 Legend
Unstabilized
70
Geotextile
Aggregate Fill Thickness (in)
60
50
40
30
20
Printed on 10-03-2018 C:\Tensar International Corporation\SpectraPave4 PRO\Untitled.sp4p
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Soaked Subgrade CBR (%)
LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT

The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in nature,
and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design recommendations can be
provided as the project develops. This report is for use of a generic biaxial geogrid ONLY where the specific product has been
substantiated by full scale in-ground testing. The user is encouraged to refer to the analysis of the Performance Verified
TriAx geogrids in addition to the section shown in this report.
Project Name North Ogden Road

Company Name IGES, inc
Designer JMG Date 10-2-18
This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRO™ Software Version 4.6.1
Developed by Tensar International Corporation
Copyright 1998 - 2017, All Rights Reserved.

North Ogden Canyon Road Hazard Identification and Mitigation - Final - REV1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

North Ogden Canyon Road Hazard Identification and Mitigation - Final - REV1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

NORTH OGDEN CANYON ROAD

HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION

Prepared for Weber County

SECTION I.................................................EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION III.................................................DRAINAGE ANALYSIS

SECTION IV................................................PAVEMENT ANALYSIS

SECTION V..........................................GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Priority Number of Total Cost*

Overall Condition Recommended Associated Priority

40 – 59 Mill and Overlay Medium/High

60 – 79 Patching with Crack Seal Medium

90 – 100 Crack Seal Low

5. Prioritizing pavement rehabilitation is based on overall condition rating, anticipated rate

We recommend that drainage improvements should be prioritized so that pavement

Priority Number of Total Cost*

Roadway Geometry Recommendations:

Priority Number of Total Cost*

Priority Number of Netting Cost*

Slope Stability Recommendations:

Priority Category Estimate

SD1 22+60 24" RCP PIPE 1 Year Event $ 4,768.00 High

SD2 37+60 24" RCP PIPE 1 Year Event $ 4,768.00 High

SD3 133+05 24" RCP PIPE 1 Year Event $ 4,768.00 High

SD4 194+40 24" RCP PIPE 1 Year Event $ 4,768.00 High

SD5 197+15 24" RCP PIPE 1 Year Event $ 4,768.00 High

TCC JOB NUMBER:

TCC JOB NUMBER:

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Widen shoulder, Add

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Widen shoulder, Add

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Remove existing berm,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Remove existing berm,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

SI-12 2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Widen shoulder, Add

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Widen shoulder, Add

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope,

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Widen shoulder, Add

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Widen shoulder, Add

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Widen shoulder, Add

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Widen shoulder, Add

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Widen shoulder, Add

2:1 or Steeper Foreslope, Widen shoulder, Add

No Rounded End Add Chevron warning for

No Rounded End Add Chevron warning for

Damaged Existing Repair\Replace Damaged

TCC JOB NUMBER:

Tintic Quartzite Fractured bedrock with

Highly fractured quartzite

Highly fractured quartzite

Includes some possible

Includes some possible

Tintic Quartzite Heavily fractured 50' Possible

Cuts up to 40'; common

Maxfield Limestone outcrop, in

Maxfield Blocky outcropping; no Regular scaling or

Some loose Scaling; possibly