Development of the Geotechnical Subsurface Database for the Probabilistic Mapping of

Liquefaction Triggering and Lateral Spread Hazard in Utah County, Utah

Jasmyn Nicole Harper

A project report submitted to the faculty of

Brigham Young University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Kevin W. Franke, Chair

Kyle M. Rollins

Fernando S. Fonseca

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Brigham Young University

March 2016

Copyright 2015 Jasmyn Nicole Harper

All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT

Performance Based Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread Mapping of Utah County

Jasmyn Nicole Harper

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, BYU

Master of Science

Geologic hazard mapping has proven to be a very useful tool for engineers, emergency

planners, and risk analysts to identify areas of potential societal impact. Two geologic risks that

are present along the Wasatch Front and more specifically, Utah County are liquefaction and

liquefaction-induced lateral spread. Before hazard maps can be created, a subsurface database

comprised of data from surficial geology maps, Digital Elevation Models (DEM), and local

subsurface exploration reports needs to be developed in the area of interest. Once the database is

developed, a performance based analysis of lateral spread hazard is performed. This report shows

a fully probabilistic method for mapping lateral spread hazard by using an empirical model for

Utah County, Utah. Based on the developed subsurface database, lateral spread maps have been

created that account for variations in soil conditions, age, topography, spatial distribution and

aleatory uncertainty. 1022 and 2475 year return period lateral spreading maps have been

developed for Utah County from this analysis. These maps quantitatively define lateral spread

hazard which is unique compared to traditional mapping efforts in Utah.

Keywords: probabilistic hazard mapping, lateral spread, liquefaction, performance-based

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisory committee for their mentoring and guidance during my

time at BYU. A special thanks to Dr. Franke for giving me the opportunity to attend graduate

school when getting my Masters hadnt been something I had planned to do. Thank you for your

encouragement and direction. I will forever be grateful for the time Ive spent here under your

mentorship.

Thank you to Dr. Dan Gillins and his student Mahyar Sharifi-Mood for their efforts in

mapping Utah County liquefaction and lateral spread hazard. I feel fortunate to have contributed

a small piece to the great work you are doing.

Thank you to my research assistants Alex Arndt, Chris Haskell, and Stott Bushnell.

Creating the database in a timely matter would have been impossible without you.

To Lucy Astorga, Brian Peterson, Braden Error, Kristen Ulmer, Alex Arndt and Levi

Ekstrom, thank you for being my homework buddies and providing much needed laughter in our

tiny corner of the Clyde.

Funding for this research was provided by the Utah Department of Transportation, as well

as funds from the UGS. Thank you for your support in the endeavor to improve hazard mapping

in Utah. The conclusions and opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of

the sponsors.

To my sweet husband, Lance: thank you for supporting me throughout my schooling and

always encouraging me to keep going, even when I wanted to quit.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii

Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 1

Liquefaction Introduction ................................................................................................. 2 1.1

1.1.1 Liquefaction Susceptibility and Initiation ................................................................. 3

Liquefaction Effects ......................................................................................................... 5 1.2

1.2.1 Lateral Spread Displacement .................................................................................... 5

Lateral Spread Model ....................................................................................................... 6 1.3

Performance Based Lateral Spread Model ....................................................................... 8 1.4

Mapping Liquefaction Effects .......................................................................................... 9 1.5

1.5.1 Hazard Mapping........................................................................................................ 9

1.5.2 Need for Updated Hazard Maps in Utah County .................................................... 11

Data collection ....................................................................................................................... 15 2

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 15 2.1

Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 15 2.2

Overview of Mapping Methodology ..................................................................................... 27 3

Mapping Probabilistic Lateral Spread in Utah County .................................................. 27 3.1

Results and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 33 4

Final Probabilistic Lateral Spread Hazard Maps ............................................................ 33 4.1

Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 36 4.2

References ............................................................................................................................. 37 5

Appendix 1. ................................................................................................................................... 41

Appendix 2. Utah County Subsurface Database ...................................................................... 45

v

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-A: Gillins and Bartlett (2014) Empirical Regression Model Coefficients for Lateral

Spreading Displacement Prediction ......................................................................................... 8

Table 2-A: Geologic Units in Study Area, Descriptions, Approximate Age, and Sample Size ... 21

Table A 1: Description of Data Fields for Site Table ................................................................... 41

Table A 2: Description of data fields for BLOW Table ............................................................... 42

Table A 3: Description of data fields for SITECPT Table ........................................................... 43

Table A 4: Description of data fields for CPTDATA Table ......................................................... 43

vii

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Traditional Liquefaction Hazard Map for Utah Valley (Anderson et al, 1994) ........ 13

Figure 2-1: Typical SPT Bore Log ............................................................................................... 18

Figure 2-2: Typical CPT Sounding ............................................................................................... 19

Figure 2-3: Generalized geology and location of SPT boreholes in the study area, Utah County,

Utah (See Table 1 for a description of the 14 generalized geologic

units in the study area) ........................................................................................................... 22

Figure 2-4: Distributions of Dry Unit Weight According to General Soil Type .......................... 23

Figure 2-5: Distributions of Fines Content According to General Soil Type ............................... 24

Figure 2-6: Distributions of Moisture Content According to General Soil Type ......................... 25

Figure 3-1: General Procedure of Mapping Probabilistic Lateral Spread Displacement ............. 27

Figure 3-2: Example of Hazard Curves for the Loading Parameter L .......................................... 29

Figure 3-3: Loading Parameter Maps for Different Return Periods ............................................. 30

Figure 4-1: Probabilistic Lateral Spread Hazard Map for Utah County,

1033 Year Return Period ....................................................................................................... 34

Figure 4-2: Probabilistic Lateral Spread Hazard Map for Utah County,

2475 Year Return Period ....................................................................................................... 35

file:///G:/research/Project_Report/Jasmyn_Harper_Report_2016_317_kwf%20edits%202_revised.docx%23_Toc445980150

ix

1

BACKGROUND 1

Liquefaction induced ground failure has the potential to cause significant damage to

infrastructure during an Earthquake. For this reason, it is important to identify areas at risk of

liquefaction induced ground failure and provide a way for engineers, city planners, and

emergency planners to easily recognize these areas. Once these areas are identified, further

ground investigations can be employed through site-specific hazard investigations and mitigation

procedures can be implemented where appropriate/needed.

The purpose of this collaborative research with investigators from Oregon State University

(OSU) is to produce probabilistic liquefaction and lateral spread hazard maps for Utah County,

Utah. To complete this research, a subsurface geotechnical database needed to be constructed.

This subsurface database contains information on soil exploration borings including GPS

coordinates, elevation data from Light Distance and Ranging (LiDar) digital elevation models

(DEMs), standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts, and laboratory data. In some cases, data

from cone penetration test (CPT) soundings was also obtained for the database. Once the

database was created, performance-based lateral spread hazard maps were developed by OSU

collaborators through a regional implementation of the Franke and Kramer (2014) performance-

based lateral spread procedure using the empirical lateral spread displacement model developed

by Youd and Bartlett (2002) and most recently updated by Youd et al. (2002) and Gillins and

Bartlett (2013). The following sections briefly describe the phenomenon of liquefaction and

2

liquefaction-induced ground deformations, the need for updated liquefaction hazard maps in

Utah County, and the methods for developing the subsurface database that was used to develop

the fully probabilistic lateral spread hazard maps. Incorporation of the subsurface geotechnical

database described in this report into a probabilistic lateral spread hazard mapping framework

was already completed by OSU collaborators, and those same investigators are currently using a

similar probabilistic mapping framework to develop liquefaction triggering maps for Utah

County. This report will therefore focus principally on describing the development of the

geotechnical database; the probabilistic mapping framework being used by Oregon State

University will not be discussed in detail in this report.

Liquefaction Introduction 1.1

The most basic definition of why liquefaction occurs is a generation of excess pore-water

pressure in an undrained condition. When the soil has a surplus of water pressure, and the water

has nowhere to drain, the soil particles begin to hydroplane and the soil mass behaves in a

liquefied manner. During an earthquake, loose, saturated soil will have the tendency to contract.

The contraction of the soil will generate positive pore water pressures, and the effective stress of

the soil will decrease depending on the amount of pore water pressures generated. Eq. (1-1)

defines effective stress:

' u (1-1)

Liquefaction triggering occurs when effective stress is equal to zero due to excess pore water

pressure generation. This liquefied condition is only temporary until the soil can either dissipate

the excess pore water pressures or the soil dilates due to phase transformation.

3

1.1.1 Liquefaction Susceptibility and Initiation

Not all soils are susceptible to liquefaction and liquefaction induced ground failures.

Kramer (1996) states that a soils history, geology, composition, and state are the criteria that

should determine liquefaction susceptibility.

Historic criteria can be defined as whether or not a soil has been liquefied before. Youd

(1984) determined from post-earthquake field investigations that liquefaction tends to happen at

the same location when both the soil and the groundwater conditions are the same.

The three geologic factors that control liquefaction susceptibility are the environment of

deposition, the age of the deposited soil, and the depth of the water table (Youd & House, 1977)

Soils that were deposited in a fluvial environment are typically the most susceptible to

liquefaction. A soils susceptibility decreases with the age of the soil deposit. Observations of

liquefaction occurrences have confirmed that liquefaction tends to occur within relatively

shallow depths (less than 10 meters) and in a fully saturated environment.

Liquefaction susceptibility can also be judged on a soils composition. This is referred to as

the compositional criteria. Characteristics of a soils composition that are of particular interest

are those that are associated with high volume change potential. These characteristics are

typically associated with liquefaction susceptibility and include particle gradation, size, and

shape (Kramer, 1996). In the past, it was thought that liquefaction only occurred in sands. As

more data has been collected, researchers have observed that nonplastic silts have the potential to

liquefy. In 1978, Ishihara observed the failure of two dikes due to the liquefaction of the silt

tailings and has since concluded that coarse silts with bulky particle shape are susceptible to

liquefaction (Ishihara, 1984). Fine silts with plate-like particles are typically too cohesive to

liquefy. Clays, because of their high plasticity, are generally not susceptible.

4

A soils gradation can determine whether or not liquefaction susceptibility exists. Typically,

soils that are well graded are less susceptible than soils that are poorly graded. A soils

predominant particle shape also influences the susceptibility. Round particles tend to densify

more than angular particles. The denser the soil, the more potential for volume change during an

earthquake event.

If a soil appears to be susceptible based on historic, geologic, and compositional criteria, it

still might not be susceptible if the state of the soil isnt ideal for liquefaction to occur. State

refers to a soils density and effective confining stress. Evaluating a soils state criteria is an

important aspect of determining liquefaction susceptibility since the tendency to generate excess

pore pressures is dependent on the present density and effective confining stress.

Even if a soil is determined to be susceptible based on the criteria discussed above, the soil

still might not experience liquefaction. Liquefaction needs to be initiated in a susceptible soil for

any significant soil deformations or strength loss to occur. Liquefaction initiation of a particular

soil can be performed in a laboratory, but is more commonly assessed in-situ using common

testing methods such as the SPT or CPT. A more thorough discussion of liquefaction

susceptibility and initiation can be found in Kramer (1996), and the reader is referred to that

source for additional information into the phenomenon, if desired.

Because only the probabilistic liquefaction triggering maps for Utah County are completed

by the OSU collaborators at the time that this report was prepared, the remainder of this report

will focus more on evaluating and mapping liquefaction effects, particularly lateral spread

displacement.

5

Liquefaction Effects 1.2

1.2.1 Lateral Spread Displacement

Lateral spread is a phenomenon that occurs in certain soil types where seismically induced

liquefaction has occurred. Evidences of lateral spread can be seen when there are permanent

horizontal deformations of a site located on a slope or near a free-face. These deformations can

range from a few millimeters to more than 10 meters of horizontal movement (Coulter &

Migliaccio, 1996). In 1906, ground motions from an earthquake in San Francisco, California

caused significant lateral spreading. Bridges, roads, buildings, and pipelines were destroyed

(Youd and Hoose, 1978). Lateral spreading that measured over one meter caused by the 1989

Loma Prieta earthquake permanently damaged the Moss Landing Marine Laboratory (Boulanger

et al., 1997). These examples show how damaging the effects of lateral spreading can be, and

how important it is to take it into account when determining the seismic risk of a region of

interest.

There are several different procedures to predict the magnitude of lateral spread

displacements. In this research, an empirical Modified Multilinear Regression Model developed

by Gillins and Bartlett (2013) was used to quantify displacements. This empirical method was

developed through a statistical process called multi-linear regression where a database of lateral

spread case histories was used to statistically create a relationship between site-specific

geotechnical information, topographic parameters, and observed lateral spread displacements.

The actual Gillins and Bartlett (2013) model will be summarized in the next section.

6

Lateral Spread Model 1.3

The three models to estimate lateral spread hazard are the following: (1) an empirical

model based on field observation, (2) a semi-empirical model based on both laboratory and field

data and (3) a numerical model based on the mechanics of liquefaction and lateral spread.

Empirical models use parameters like a soils thickness, density, fines content, and earthquake

loading. Semi-empirical models use soil density and earthquake loading to define the limiting

shear strain. Empirical regression models are the most popular in practice and among researchers

when estimating liquefaction-induced lateral spread displacements. This is because they are very

simple to use.

The method used in developing the lateral spread hazard maps for Utah County takes into

account the uncertainty of the input parameters of a multilinear regression (MLR) model and

produces a fully probabilistic lateral spreading seismic hazard curve at locations of interest in

addition to lateral spread displacements at specified return periods.

A model for predicting lateral spread was first developed by Bartlett and Youd (1992,

1995). They introduced an empirical equation for predicting lateral spread displacement at

locations susceptible to liquefaction. The equation was developed through multilinear regression

of a large case history database. Later, the MLR was updated with more case history data (Youd

et al., 2002). In this updated model, parameters such as soil thickness, fines content, and mean

grain size of saturated, granular sediment deposits with an (N1)60 are related directly to

horizontal displacement. Since soil parameters like fines content and mean grain size arent

typically available in standard geotechnical investigations, Gillins and Bartlett (2013), developed

a modified empirical equation based on the Youd et al. (2002) equation that replaces fines

content and mean grain size parameters with soil description factors. This allows investigators

7

performing preliminary evaluations to make lateral spread displacement estimates using existing

geotechnical data with limited subsurface data. Eq. (1-1) shows the revised empirical model:

*

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 15,

0.252

H off csLogD b b b M b LogR b R b LogW b LogS b LogT

(1-2)

Where HD = estimated horizontal displacement (meters) from lateral spreading; M = moment

magnitude of the earthquake ( WM ); R = nearest horizontal or mapped distance from the site to

the seismic energy source (kilometers); and *R is a nonlinear magnitude-distance function

calculated by Eq. (1-2):

* 0.89 5.6410 MR R (1-3)

W = ratio of the height of the free face to the horizontal distance between the base of the free

face and the point of interest (%); 15,csT , the only geotechnical variable in Eq. (1-1), is

represented by Eq. (1-3):

1 2 3 4 515, 15

0.683 0.200 0.252 0.040 0.535 0.25210 ^

0.592cs

x x x x xT T

(1-4)

Where 15T = cumulative thickness (meters) of saturated, cohesionless deposits in the soil profile

with corrected SPT blow counts, and nx is the thickness (in meters) of soil layer n (up to 5)

contributing to 15T divided by 15T . Eq. (1-1) has the following partial regression coefficients

based on regression of the case history database of Youd et al. (2002):

8

Table 1-A: Gillins and Bartlett (2014) Empirical Regression Model Coefficients for Lateral

Spreading Displacement Prediction

Model b0 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6

Ground - Slope -8.208 1.318 -1.073 -0.016 0 0.337 0.592

Free Face -8.552 1.318 -1.073 -0.016 0.445 0 0.592

Performance Based Lateral Spread Model 1.4

In this research, lateral spread mapping needs to encompass uncertainty in earthquake size,

location, and ground motion parameters. Franke and Kramer (2014) recommend simplifying Eq.

(1-1) to Eq. (1-4).

HLogD L G (1-5)

Eq. (1-5) describes the site loading (L), geometry (G), and model uncertainty (). Incorporating

all of the uncertainty in Gillins and Bartlett (2014) empirical model for lateral spread, a

performance-base model can be defined below in Eq. (1-5).

|

1

( | ) ( | , )L

H i

N

D S H i L

i

d G P D d G L

(1-6)

LN is the number of loading parameter bins in range of possible L values. Rather than only

considering a single scenario (a DSHA analysis), a fully probabilistic approach is implemented

by binning various L values containing all combinations of magnitude and distance considering

all known earthquake scenarios.

To implement this approach for mapping lateral spread in Utah County, several input raster

datasets are needed. The types of datasets needed are the following: (1) seismic inputs containing

9

loading parameter raster maps at different return periods processed with EZ-FRISK software for

the study area; (2) All topographic inputs including DEM, slope geometry maps, and free-face

maps; and (3) geotechnical inputs in the form of a subsurface database for the region.

Mapping Liquefaction Effects 1.5

1.5.1 Hazard Mapping

Since liquefaction and ground failure due to liquefaction is one of the main causes of

damage to infrastructure during an earthquake event, it is beneficial to have a map that shows the

risk of liquefaction induced ground failure in any given region. Maps that delineate an

approximate hazard allow city planners and engineers to identify vulnerable locations and

determine what needs to be done to mitigate the hazard. These types of maps have been

developed throughout seismically active zones such as California, including the San Francisco

Bay area (Youd and Perkins 1986; Kavazanjian et al. 1985), the Los Angeles Basin (Youd et al.

1978; Tinslet et al. 1985), and the San Diego area (Power et al. 1982, 1986). Mapping efforts

have typically been qualitative and based on geology since surficial geologic units have been

shown to correlate reasonably well with liquefaction susceptibility (Youd & Perkins, 1978).

Liquefaction triggering and lateral spread displacement for hazard maps have typically

been based on a single ground motion scenario. This is considered a deterministic approach

and was used in 2007 by Olsen to develop lateral spread displacement maps for Salt Lake

County, Utah. Deterministic seismic hazard analysis provides a straightforward method to

estimate what is often intended to be a worst-case scenario ground motion. One disadvantage

of the DSHA approach is that it does not take into account the occurrence likelihood of the

10

scenario earthquake. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) provides a more complete

analysis of the likelihoods of ground motion exceedance at a given site. PSHA allows

uncertainties in the location, size, and rate of recurrence of earthquakes to be considered as a part

of the evaluation and determination of seismic hazards (Kramer, 1996). This research

incorporated PSHA ground motions computed by the 2008 update of the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) national seismic hazard maps rather than a DSHA-based approach.

More robust mapping methods also take into account site-specific data. This methodology

is referred to as a geotechnical approach rather than a geological approach. Site-specific

hazard assessment of liquefaction triggering and lateral spread displacement require subsurface

information (SPT, CPT, lab data), site topography, and seismic loading information. To map a

more accurate assessment of liquefaction triggering and lateral spread hazard in a certain region

compared to traditional hazard maps, subsurface data, site topography, and seismic loading for a

certain site need to be determined and accounted for.

Research by Holzer (2008) has suggested that a probabilistic approach to site-specific

liquefaction hazard assessment tends to yield more reliable estimates of liquefaction hazard than

conventional approaches. This research develops a new method to map lateral spread hazard

based on probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the region, site geology, a database of available

SPTs, groundwater measurements, and digital elevation models from high-resolution LiDAR

data. The methodology accounts for variations in seismic loading, topography, subsurface

geotechnical conditions, sediment age and type, spatial dependence, and uncertainty of

earthquake magnitude and source-to-site distance. To account for uncertainty in all of the

parameters, a random sampling method known as Monte Carlo simulations at each raster cell is

used.

11

This research incorporated PSHA ground motions computed by the 2008 update of the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) national seismic hazard maps rather than a DSHA-based approach.

1.5.2 Need for Updated Hazard Maps in Utah County

Many locales along the Wasatch Front are at risk of experiencing significant liquefaction

effects in the event of an earthquake event. The geologic environment of the Wasatch Front has

produced a considerable amount of loose, saturated, cohesionless soils; these types of soils

present a high risk of being liquefiable if an earthquake were to occur. In a study by the Utah

Geological Survey, it has been determined that multiple prehistoric liquefaction-induced lateral

spread and flow failure occurrences have occurred along the Wasatch Front (Harty, 2003). These

historical criteria would imply that there is a risk of the same soils liquefying again, as discussed

above.

Using maps to delineate liquefaction hazards along the Wasatch Front is a research effort

that began in the 1980s when the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)

funded Utah State University to map liquefaction triggering hazard in Davis County (Anderson

et al. 1994). Since 1994, there have been several developments that have justified the creation of

new, updated maps for not only Davis County, but all of the counties in Utah. These

developments include: (1) progress in probabilistic liquefaction triggering and lateral spread

analyses ((e.g., Cetin et al. 2004, Moss et al. 2006, Bartlett et al. 2005, Bartlett et al. 2010); (2)

updated probabilistic strong ground motion estimates via the USGS National Seismic Hazard

Mapping Project (Peterson et al. 2008); (3) larger amounts of quality geotechnical data; (4)

support from the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program to federal, state, and

12

university partners to produce digital surficial geologic maps; and (5) widespread use of

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to create and analyze spatial databases (Gillins, 2012).

Traditional liquefaction hazard maps such as Anderson et al. (1994) use vague and generic

qualifiers such as high to very low to quantify hazard. Figure 1-1 shows a hazard map by

Anderson et al (1994) that illustrates this. These vague quantifications can cause inconsistencies

in interpretations and implementations. An actual measurement of ground displacements would

help alleviate this problem. In this study, the probability of exceeding certain displacement

values was computed in the development of the probabilistic lateral spread hazard maps.

This research focuses on the development of a subsurface database that will be used to

generate probabilistic liquefaction triggering and lateral spread hazard maps for Utah County.

This study is a continuation of a 10 year-long research effort that was initiated by the University

of Utah. Olsen et al. (2007) developed maps for an M7.0 scenario earthquake for the Salt Lake

portion of the Wasatch Fault. In 2012, Gillins performed a probabilistic regional mapping

assessing hazard levels of liquefaction-induced ground failure in Weber County, Utah. For this

research, Dr. Dan Gillins and Mahyar Sharifi-Mood from OSU have been primarily responsible

for the development of the probabilistic liquefaction triggering and lateral spread maps. The

remainder of this report will therefore just focus on the development of the geotechnical database,

which is arguably the most critical and necessary component for the completion of the

probabilistic liquefaction triggering and lateral spread hazard maps.

13

Figure 1-1: Traditional Liquefaction Hazard Map for Utah Valley (Anderson et al, 1994)

15

DATA COLLECTION 2

Introduction 2.1

To create a lateral spread displacement hazard map, a subsurface database needs to be

developed. A subsurface database for Utah County was created following the methods developed

and used by Bartlett (2010) and Gillins (2012) for Salt Lake and Weber counties respectively.

The following sections will outline the database structure, how the data was collected, database

statistics, and how the lateral spread maps were produced.

Data Collection 2.2

The subsurface geotechnical data that was collected was in the form of SPT boring logs

and CPT soundings. The collection of Utah County soil boring logs and CPT soundings required

the participation of multiple engineering firms and their clients, as well as government agencies.

These agencies included Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Utah Geological Survey

(UGS), Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) in addition to local city

governments. The research group was given a letter from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-

Day Saints addressed to its former geotechnical engineering consultants that requested the

release of all geotechnical subsurface information (soil boring, cone penetration soundings, shear

wave velocity profiles, and test pits) to our research group for the development of probabilistic

liquefaction and lateral spread hazard maps for Utah County. The letter was sent to the

geotechnical consultants that performed work for the LDS church in the past. Many of these

16

geotechnical consultants were accommodating and allowed the research team to go into their

offices to electronically copy all the geotechnical reports that they had written for the LDS

church.

The data required to make the maps include site geology basemaps, slope information from

a LiDar DEM, free-face information from a LiDar DEM, geotechnical investigations, and

probabilistic seismic hazard curves. Site geology maps were obtained from the Utah Geological

Survey. 30 x 60 quadrangle maps were used. The Lidar DEMs have a resolution of

approximately 0.5 meters. All data from geotechnical investigations was input into a Microsoft

Access database. Tables A1-A4 describe the data that was of interest and was entered. Once the

logs were entered into the database, the location of the log was plotted on a GIS map which

revealed what areas of Utah County could benefit from additional geotechnical information.

The SPT boring logs provided at least soil descriptions and classifications, layer

delineations, and uncorrected SPT blow counts (N). Additionally, some of the logs reported lab

measurements such as fines contents, Atterberg limits, unit weights, and moisture contents. Most

of the logs reported the depth to ground water if it was encountered. Raw SPT blow counts were

corrected to 1,60N following the procedures in Idriss and Boulanger (2008). To quantify the

quality of the data, a ranking was assigned to each measured soil property. A value of 1 was

assigned to data that was found on the original bore log. A value of 2 was assigned if the

information could be estimated from a nearby bore log in the same report or a close region. A

value of 2 was also assigned to ground water depths that were not measured at completion. A

value of 3 was assigned if the data was not trustworthy most often because the information was

inferred from a similar report. Figure 2-1 shows an example of a typical bore log that was

entered into the subsurface database.

17

The CPT soundings have measurements of friction ratio, sleeve friction, cone-tip resistance,

and pore water pressure. Most of the CPT soundings also had a pore-water pressure dissipation

test that gave an estimation of the depth of groundwater. Only CPT soundings where electronic

data was available were entered into the database. No digitizing of graphical CPT soundings was

performed Figure 2-2 shows an example of a typical CPT sounding that was input into the

subsurface database. To preserve the confidentiality of the clients and the sites, information was

redacted.

18

Figure 2-1: Typical SPT Bore Log

19

Figure 2-2: Typical CPT Sounding

20

Overall, 753 borehole logs and 39 CPT soundings in the study area were collected,

digitized, and stored into a GIS. The map in Figure 2-3 shows the spatial location of each point

as well as the major geologic units that will be studied in this research (as categorized and

described in Table 2-A), the SPT borings, active faults, rivers, lakes, and main UDOT routes. It

is important to note that the geologic units on mountainous terrain are assumed to consist of

dense soil with a deep groundwater table. Thus, we consider liquefaction in mountainous areas

highly unlikely. Theoretically, perched groundwater in mountainous regions can lead to localized

liquefaction triggering, but this case was generally not accounted for in the subsurface database.

The Microsoft Access

database itself has the following four sheets: SITE, BLOW,

SITECPT, and CPTDATA. The SITE and BLOW sheets contain information for SPT bore logs.

The SITECPT and CPTDATA sheets contain information for the CPT soundings. More

information on the structure of the database can be found in Appendix 1.

To fill in the gaps for grid points that didnt have data, distributions of relevant geotechnical

data (dry unit weight, fines and moisture content) were produced with respect to general soil type.

These distributions were created by graphing the value of the geotechnical soil properties verses

the number of occurrences of that specific value of the soil properties for a specific soil type. The

soil types considered were fine gravels, gravels and sands, clean sands, silty sands, sandy silts,

and clays. The soil properties considered were dry unit weight, fines content and moisture

content. These distributions can be seen in Figures 2-4, 2-5 and 2-6. The completed database can

be found in Apendix 2.

21

Table 2-A: Geologic Units in Study Area, Descriptions, Approximate Age, and Sample Size

Deposit

Symbol Description Age*

#SPT

1. Stream Alluvium

Qal Modern stream alluvium Holocene 33

2. Stream-Terrace Alluvium

Qat1 Stream-terrace alluvium, lowest terrace levels Holocene - UP 7

Qat2 Stream-terrace alluvium, medium terrace levels Holocene - UP 4

Qat3 Stream-terrace alluvium, highest terrace levels Holocene - UP 1

3. Alluvial Fan - Old

Qafb Transgressive (Bonneville) Lake Bonneville-age UP 1

Qafm Intermediate Lake Bonneville-age alluvial fan UP to middle P 21

Qafp Regressive (Provo) Lake Bonneville-age alluvial fan UP 10

4. Alluvial Fan Young

Qafy Younger alluvial-fan Holocene 171

5. Delta

Qdb Near Bonneville shoreline of Lake Bonneville UP 1

Qdp Near and below Provo shoreline of Lake Bonneville UP 13

6. Fine-Grained Lacustrine

Qlf Fine-grained lacustrine from Lake Bonneville UP 194

Qly Young lacustrine along margins of Utah Lake; less than 6 m thick

and overlies Qlf unit Holocene UP 6

Qsm Fine, organic-rich sediment from springs, marshes, seeps; less

than 3 m thick and overlies Qlf unit Holocene UP 1

7. Lacustrine Sand

Qls Lacustrine sand below Bonneville and Provo shorelines UP 100

Qes Eolian sand; 1-1.5 m thick and derived from Qls unit Holocene - UP 7

8. Landslides

Qmsy Modern landslide, currently or recently active Holocene 6

Qms Modern landslide Holocene 2

9 14. Others

Qlg Lacustrine gravel and sand near Bonn. and Provo shorelines Uppermost P 21

Qfdp Lake Bonneville alluvial-fan and delta, Provo stage Uppermost P 61

Qh Human disturbance fill for major interstate and highways Historic 53

Qla Lacustrine and alluvial, undivided Holocene UP 20

Qay Alluvial fan and terrace post-Provo shoreline of Lake Bonn. Holocene UP 13

Qac Alluvium and colluvium, undivided Quaternary 7

* = UP = Upper Pleistocene; P = Pleistocene

22

Figure 2-3: Generalized geology and location of SPT boreholes in the study area, Utah

County, Utah (See Table 1 for a description of the 14 generalized geologic units in the study

area)

23

Figure 2-4: Distributions of Dry Unit Weight According to General Soil Type

24

Figure 2-5: Distributions of Fines Content According to General Soil Type

25

Figure 2-6: Distributions of Moisture Content According to General Soil Type

26

27

OVERVIEW OF MAPPING METHODOLOGY 3

Mapping Probabilistic Lateral Spread in Utah County 3.1

Mapping of lateral spread displacement for Utah County was completed by researchers at

Oregon State University. A general overview of their procedure used in the map development is

outlined in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1: General Procedure of Mapping Probabilistic Lateral Spread Displacement

28

Following the flow chart in Figure 3-1, the steps for mapping probabilistic lateral spread in

Utah County were the following:

Step 1: Geology input was created as a raster grid file in ArcGIS. It relates each pixel in

the mapping study area to one of the existing geology groups. The spatial resolution of this raster

is 30 meters by 30 meters.

Step 2 and 3: A very high resolution digital elevation model (DEM) based on aerial LiDar

data (0.5 meter spatial resolution) was downloaded from the AGRC website. Using the

aforementioned high resolution DEM, the percent ground slope on the sloping terrain is

computed, and the location of the major free-faces in the study area is digitized. With the free-

faces digitized, another raster was computed that depicts the free-face ratio, W, for the study area.

A 30 meters pixel size is selected as the spatial resolution of these raster maps.

Step 4: 15,csT probability distributions are created for all 14 geologic units in the study

area by running 300 Monte Carlo simulations at each borehole. Later a randomly selected 15,csT

value was chosen for each pixel given the geology at that pixel.

Step 5: Hazard curves for L were computed in the study area at a spacing of 0.05 degrees

longitude. Figure 3-2 presents an example of hazard curves for L at different site locations

outlined below. L values at multi-site points spaced every 0.05 degrees are computed using EZ-

FRISK software. A series of raster maps in the study area were then computed by performing a

bilinear interpolation for various return periods of L (i.e., 100, 275, 475, 1000, 2500, 5000, and

10000). Figure 3-3 presents the generated loading parameter maps (1000, 2500 and 5000 return

period) for specific locations that represent the four major quadrants of Utah County.

29

Figure 3-2: Example of Hazard Curves for the Loading Parameter L

0.0001

0.001

0.01

5 6 7 8 9

Me

an A

nn

ual

Rat

e o

f Ex

cee

dan

ce,

L

Loading Parameter, L

4 - North 3 - East

1- West 2 - South

30

Figure 3-3: Loading Parameter Maps for Different Return Periods

31

Step 6: The probability of occurrence for loading parameters are computed from their

mean annual rate of exceedance in the seismic hazard curves and a randomly selected loading

parameter is chosen to present the loading condition for the current pixel. Given, loading

parameter value (L) and known geometry condition (G, slope value and free-face ratio) from the

created input datasets at each pixel mean value of HLogD can be calculated per Eq.(3-1).

HLogD L G (3-1)

Step 7: The Gillins and Bartlett (2014) empirical regression equation uncertainty (HLogD

= 0.252) is modeled by generating a random value of randK from a standard normal distribution.

The HLogD value for the current pixel can now be estimated using Eq. (3-2).

HH H LogD randLogD LogD K (3-2)

Step 8: At any given pixel of the study area map, 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations are

performed which repeats steps 4 through 7.

Step 9 and 10: Having lateral spreading displacement distributions completed, seismic

hazard curves are developed by converting probabilities in the distribution to mean annual rate of

exceedances in hazard curves using Eq. (3-3).

t1P e (3-3)

Step 11: : Lateral spreading displacement corresponding to 2% in 50 years and 10% in

100 years probabilistic scenarios are calculated by constructing cumulative distribution function

(CDF) for each raster cell and selecting the appropriate percentile with respect to these scenarios.

Given the created DH seismic hazard curves, lateral spreading displacement values

corresponding to 1033 and 2475 years return periods (=1/T) are computed and assigned to the

current pixel.

32

Step 12: Steps 1 through 11 will be performed again for the next pixel until the whole

study area is covered and maps are ready to be produced and visualized in ArcMap.

33

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 4

Final Probabilistic Lateral Spread Hazard Maps 4.1

The following section shows the results of the probabilistic lateral spread analysis outlined

above. Figure 4-1 shows the 1033 year return period probabilistic lateral spread hazard maps.

Figure 4-2 shows the 2475 year return period probabilistic lateral spread hazard maps. 475 year

return period maps were not developed because the 1033 year return period map analysis already

predicted low lateral displacement hazard across most of Utah County.

34

Figure 4-1: Probabilistic Lateral Spread Hazard Map for Utah County, 1033 Year Return

Period

35

Figure 4-2: Probabilistic Lateral Spread Hazard Map for Utah County, 2475 Year Return

Period

36

Conclusions 4.2

Based on the map in Figure 4-1, a 1033 year return period earthquake scenario will

unlikely see displacements greater than 0.3 m; most of Utah County wont likely experience

displacements greater than 0.1 m. In an earthquake scenario with a 2475 year return period,

most of Utah County will likely see displacements less than 0.3 m, but there are some regions

that could see displacements up to 1 m (see Figure 4-2).

The current maps produced clearly display which regions of Utah County have the

highest hazard quantitatively. These maps should be used for (1) preliminary consideration of

lateral spread hazards prior to the availability of site-specific geotechnical data, (2) public policy

and (3) consideration and development of geotechnical site exploration plans. These maps should

not be used to make geotechnical engineering recommendations without a site-specific

liquefaction hazard analysis.

Liquefaction triggering maps were still in development at the time this report was written,

which is why they are not included in this report. However, the same geotechnical database

described in this report is being used in their creation by OSU researchers.

37

REFERENCES

Ambraseys, N. N. (1988). Engineering Seismology. Earthquake Engineering & Structural

Dynamics , 1-105.

Ambraseys, N. N. (1988). Engineering Seismology. Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics, Vol 17, 1-105.

Anderson, L. R., Keaton , J. R., Aubry, K., & Ellis, S. J. (1994). Liquefaction Map for Davis

County, Utah Contract No. 14-08-0001-19127. U.S.G.S.

Anderson, L. R., Keaton, J. R., Spitzley, J. E., & Allen, A. C. (1986). Liquefaction Potential Map

for Salt Lake County, Utah Contract No. 14-08-0001-19910. U.S.G.S.

Bartlet, S. F., Gerber, T. M., & Hincklet, D. (2010). Probabilistic Liquefaction Potential and

Liquefaction-Induced Ground Failure Maps for the Urban Wasatch Front: Phase IV,

Fiscal Year 2007: Collaborative Research with Unversity of Utah and Brigham Young

University. Denver, CO: U.S.G.S.

Bartlett, S. F., & Youd, T. L. (1992). Empirical Analysis of Horizontal Ground Displacement

Generated by Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreads, Technical Report NCEER-92-0021.

Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.

Bartlett, S. F., & Youd, T. L. (1995). Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral

Spread. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering .

Boulanger, R., Mejia, L., & Idriss, I. (1997). Liqefaction at Moss Landing during Loma Prieta

Earthquake. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering , 453-467.

Bray, J. D., & Sancio, R. B. (2006). Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-

Grained Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 132(9),

1165-1177.

Casagrande, A. (1936). Characteristics of Cohesionless Soils Affecting the Stability of Slopes

and Earth Fills. Jounral of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, 257-276.

Castro, G. (1969). Liquefaction of Sands. Harvard Soil Mechanics Series 87.

Cetin, K. O., Seed, R. B., Kiureghian, A. D., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., Kaven, R. E., & Moss,

R. E. (2004). Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic

38

Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 130(12), 1314-1340.

Coulter, M., & Migliccio, L. (1996). Effects of the Earthquake of March 27, 1964 at Valdez,

Alaska Proffessional Paper 542-C. Washington, DC: U.S.G.S .

Engineering, R. (2010). EZ-FRISK version 7.43. Boulder, CO.

ESRI. (2011). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA.

F., B. S., Olsen, M. J., & Solomon, B. J. (2005). Probabilistic Liquefaction Potential and

Liquefaction-Induced Ground Failure Maps for the Urban Wasatch Front: Collaborative

Research with the University of Utah, Utah State University and the Utah Geological

Survey, Phase I, FY2004. Reston, VA: U.S.G.S.

Franke, K., & Kramer, S. (2014). Procedure for the Empirical Evaluation of Lateral Spread

Displacement Hazard Curves. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, 140(1), 110-120.

Gillins, D. T. (2012). Mapping the Probability and Uncertainty of Liquefaction-Induced Ground

Failure, Ph.D Dissertation. Salt Lake City, UT: Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, University of Utah.

Gillins, D. T., & Bartlett, S. (2013). Multilinear Regression Equations for Predicting Lateral

Spread Displacements from Soil Type and Cone Penetration Test Data. Jounral of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineers, Vol 141(4).

Hart, K. M., & Lower, M. (2003). Geologic Evaluation and Hazard Potential of Liquefaction-

Induced Landslides along the Wasatch Front, Utah. Salt Lake City, UT: UGS.

Hinckley, D. (2010). Liquefaction-Induced Ground Displacement Mapping for the Salt Lake

Valley, Utah . Dept. of Civil and Env. Eng., University of Utah.

Holzer, T. L. (2008). Theme paper-Probabilistic Liquefaction Hazard Mapping. Geotech-

Earthquake Eng Soil Dyn IV, GSP 181.

Idriss, I. M., & Boulanger, R. W. (2008). Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Oakland, CA:

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute .

Ishihara, K. (1984). Post-earthquake Failure of a Tailings Dam due to Liquefaction of the Pond

Deposit. Proceedings, International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical

Engineering. 3, pp. 1129-1143. St. Louis, MO: University of Missouri.

Kavazanjian, E. M., Roth, R. A., & Heriverto, E. (1985). Liquefaction Potential Mapping for San

Francisco. Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, 111(1), 54-76.

Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall .

39

Moss, R. E., Seed, R. B., Kayen, R., Stewart, J. P., Kiureghian, A. D., & Cetin, K. O. (2006).

CPT-based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of In-situ Seismic Soil

Liquefaction Potential. Jounral of Geotechnical and Geoenvironemtal Engineering,

132(8).

Olsen, M., Bartlett, S. F., & Solomon, B. J. (2007). Lateral Spread Hazard Mapping of the

Northern Salt Lake Valley, Utah for a M7.0 Scenario Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra,

23(1), 95-113.

Peterson, M. D., Frankel, A. D., Harmsen, S. C., Mueller, C. S., Haller, K. M., Wheeler, R.

L., . . . Rukstales, K. S. (2008). Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States

National Seismic Hazard Maps. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.

Power, M. S., Berger, V., Youngs, R. R., Coppersmith, K. J., & Streiff, D. W. (n.d.). Evaulation

of Liqefaction Opportunity and Liquefaction Potential in the San Diego, California

Urban Area - Final Technical Report by Woodman Clyde Consultants to the U.S.

Geological Survey Contract No. 14-08-0001-20627.

Power, M. S., Dawson, A. W., Streiff, D. W., Perman, R. C., & Berger, V. (n.d.). Evaluation of

Liquefaction Susceptibility in the San Diego, California Urban Area-Final Technical

Report by Woodman-Clyde Consultants to the U.S. Geological Survey Contract No. 14-

08-0001-19110.

Reiter, L. (1990). Earthquake-Hazard Analysis-Issues and Insights. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Tinsley et al. (1985). Evaulating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region (Professional

Paper 1360). Washington, D.C: U.S. Geological Survey.

Youd, T. L. (1984). Recurrence of Liquefaciton at the Same Site. 8th World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, 3, pp. 231-238.

Youd, T. L., & Hoose, S. N. (1977). Liquefaction susceptibility and Geologic Setting. 6th World

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol 3, pp. 2189-2194. New Delhi.

Youd, T. L., & Perkins, D. M. (1978). Mapping Liquefaction-Induced Ground Failure Potential.

Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 104(GT4), 433-446.

Youd, T. L., & Perkins, J. B. (1987). Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of San Mateo County,

California-Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-1257. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological

Survey.

Youd, T. L., Hansen, C. M., & Bartlett, S. F. (2002). Revised Multilinear Regression Equations

for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement. Jounral of Geotechnical and

Environmental Engineering, 128(12), 1007-1017.

Youd, T. L., Nichols, D. R., Helley, E. J., & Lajoie, K. R. (1975). Liquefaction Potential -

Studies for Seismic Zonation of the San Francisco Bay Area (Professional Paper 941-A).

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey.

40

Youd, T. L., Tinsley, J. C., Perkins, D. M., King, E. J., & Preston, R. F. (1978). Liquefaction

Potential Map of San Fernando Valley, California. Proceedings on International

Conference on Microzonation for Safer Construction (pp. 267-278). San Francisco:

National Science Foundation.

41

APPENDIX 1.

Table A 1: Description of Data Fields for Site Table

Field Name Description Units

BOREELEV Surface elevation of SPT borehole feet

BORING Identification of borehole listed on SPT log [text]

BoreDiam Diameter of borehole inches

BoreDiamEs Quality indicator of diameter of borehole: 1 = directly from log; 2 = from log

drilled by same rig and driller

DATE_ Date of borehole [text]

DEPTHGW Depth to groundwater table feet

DRILLER Name of company who drilled the borehole [text]

DRILLMETH Drilling method [text]

ELEVEST Quality indicator for elevation of borehole: 1 = directly from log; 2 =

estimated from nearby log; 3 = from maps

GWDATE Date of depth to groundwater measurement [text]

GWEST

Quality indicator of depth to groundwater measurement; 1 = directly from log

at least 24 hours after drilling; 2 = from log but date not listed; 3 = from

nearby log

HAMMER_TYP Hammer type (i.e., safety, donut, or automatic) [text]

LATITUDE NAD 1983 latitude (in decimal degrees) degree

LATITEST Quality indicator of measurements of latitude and longitude: 1 = directly from

log; 2 = scaled from maps

LONGITUDE NAD 1983 longitude (in decimal degrees) degree

NCORR True/False whether SPT N-values on logs were already corrected to N1,60

NOTES Notes and other information [text]

REFERENCE Name of folder containing scanned images of SPT logs

REPORT Name of report where SPT log can be found [text]

RIGTYPE Type of drill rig used by drillers [text]

SITEIDNO Identification number assigned to SPT (link to BLOW table)

SITENAME Name of facility or address where SPT was performed [text]

EASTING NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12 easting meters

NORTHING NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12 northing meters

CE Mean correction for hammer energy ratio : 1 = safety; 1.1 = automatic.

Apply to correct raw SPT blow counts to N1,60

CB Correction for borehole diameter. Apply to correct raw SPT blow counts to

N1,60

GEOLUNIT Mapped surficial geologic unit where SPT was performed [text]

42

Table A 2: Description of data fields for BLOW Table

Field Name Description Units

BOREIDNO Identification of boring listed on SPT log [text]

COMMENTS Comments or additional information [text]

DEPTH Depth to middle of sample or depth to boundary line between layers feet

DRYUNIT Dry unit weight of sample kN/m3

DRYUNITPCF Dry unit weight of sample in pounds per cubic foot pcf

ESTATT* Quality indicator for Atterberg limits of sample

ESTDRY* Quality indicator for dry unit weight of sample

ESTFINES* Quality indicator for fines content of sample

ESTMOIST* Quality indicator for moisture content of sample

ESTNM* Quality indicator for SPT blow counts for bottom 12 inches (0.3 m)

of sample

ESTUSCS* Quality indicator for classification of sample according to the

Unified Soil Classification System

ESTWET* Quality indicator for wet unit weight of sample

FINES Fines content of sample (percent of sample passing a U.S. Standard

No. 200 sieve)

%

LIQUIDLIMIT Liquid limit of sample %

MOISTURE_

CONTENT

Moisture content of sample %

N160 Corrected SPT blow counts (N1,60) from borehole log for bottom 12

in. (0.3 m) of sample

NVALUE Uncorrected SPT blow counts for bottom 12 in. (0.3 m) of sample

(more common than N160)

PERGRAVEL Percent of sample retained on a No. 4 sieve %

PERSAND Percent of sample passing a No. 4 sieve and retained on a No. 200

sieve

%

PLASTICINDEX Plastic index of sample %

PLASTICLIMIT Plastic limit of sample %

SAMPLER Type of sampler: CS or MCAL = modified California; DM = Dames

& Moore; SH = thin-walled Shelby tube; SS = split-spoon (standard

for SPT)

SAMPLEREST Quality indicator for properties of sampler

SAMPLER-

LENGTH

Length sample retained in the sampler feet

SAMPLER_

OUTSIDE_

DIAMETER

Outside diameter of sampler inches

SITEIDNO Identification number assigned to SPT (link to SITE table)

SOILTYPE Description of soil sample from log; blank values indicate boundary

lines between layers

[text]

SPGRAV Specific gravity of sample

USCS Unified Soil Classification System [text]

WETUNIT Wet unit weight of sample pcf

WCLASS Index assigned to sample for estimating its unit weight

MCLASS Index assigned to sample for estimating its moisture class

SGCLASS Index assigned to sample for estimating its specific gravity

N60CE SPT blow counts for bottom 12 in. (0.3 m) of sample, corrected for

rod length, sampler liner, sampler type, and borehole diameter (but

not for energy ratio, CE)

SOIL_INDEX Soil index of sample (SI) * = A value of: 1 = directly from log; 2 = from nearby log in same report; 3 = from nearby log of different report; 9 = from log but likely

inaccurate

43

Table A 3: Description of data fields for SITECPT Table

Field Name Description Units

CONEID Identification number of cone used for test [text]

CPTIDNO Identification number assigned to CPT

DATE_ Date of sounding [text]

DEPTHGW Depth to groundwater table feet

ELEV Surface elevation of CPT sounding feet

ELEVEST Quality indicator for elevation of sounding: 3 = from map

GWEST Quality indicator of depth to groundwater measurement; 1 = from

pore-water dissipation (PPD) test; 2 = from nearby PPD test ; 3 =

interpolated between PPD tests

LATITUDE NAD 1983 latitude (in decimal degrees) degree

LATITEST Quality indicator of measurements of latitude and longitude: 1 =

directly from log; 2 = scaled from maps; 3 = scale from maps of

lesser quality

LONGITUDE NAD 1983 longitude (in decimal degrees) degree

PROJECT Name of folder containing raw CPT data

REPORT Name of report where CPT log can be found [text]

SOUNDING Identification of CPT sounding from logs [text]

SOURCE Name of company who performed the CPT [text]

AREA_RATIO Net area ratio of the cone

EASTING NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12 easting meters

NORTHING NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12 northing meters

INCREMENT Change in depth between CPT measurements meters

GEOLUNIT Mapped surficial geologic unit where CPT was performed [text]

Table A 4: Description of data fields for CPTDATA Table

Field Name Description Units

CPTIDNO Identification number assigned to CPT (link to SITECPT table)

DEPTH Depth below ground surface feet

PRESSURE Pore-water pressure behind tip of cone (in feet of head) feet

QC Cone tip resistance tsf

QT Cone tip resistance corrected for pore-pressure effects tsf

SLEEVE Sleeve friction tsf

SOUNDING Identification of CPT sounding from logs [text]

UBT Pore-water pressure behind tip of cone (in tsf) tsf

FRATIO Friction ratio (SLEEVE/QT*100) %

DEPTHM Depth below ground surface, in meters meters

44

45

APPENDIX 2. UTAH COUNTY SUBSURFACE DATABASE

ID1 ID SITEIDNO BOREELEV BORING BoreDiam BoreDiamEs DATE_ DEPTHGW DRILLER1 1 1 4,563.98 1 3.9 1 9/22/1999 7.1 UDOT2 2 2 4,545.60 2 3.9 1 9/24/1999 6.7 UDOT3 3 3 4,581.04 3 3.9 1 10/8/1999 6.1 UDOT4 10 10 4,583.01 1 4 1 1/14/2009 18.3 UDOT5 11 11 4,604.00 2 4 1 1/29/2009 20 UDOT6 12 12 4,507.87 1 3 1 10/19/1993 6.2 UDOT7 13 13 4,514.11 3 3 1 10/30/1993 8.7 UDOT8 14 14 7,200.00 2 4 1 10/30/2003 2.8 UDOT9 15 15 7,193.00 4 4 1 11/14/2003 2.8 UDOT10 16 16 4,838.25 1 3 1 5/2/1984 5.2 UDOT11 17 17 4,842.85 2 3 1 5/7/1984 6.1 UDOT12 18 18 4,771.65 TH2 6 3 9/23/2002 16.5 Earthcore13 19 19 4,768.37 TH3 6 3 9/23/2002 21 Earthcore14 20 20 4,762.14 TH4 6 3 9/23/2002 16.5 Earthcore15 21 21 4,945.54 TH1 6 3 12/6/2004 10.5 Earthtech16 22 22 4,945.54 TH2 6 3 12/6/2004 16.5 Earthtech17 23 23 4,948.16 TH3 6 3 12/6/2004 6 Earthtech18 24 24 4,954.40 TH4 6 3 12/6/2004 8.5 Earthtech19 25 25 4,956.04 TH5 6 3 12/6/2004 20 Earthtech20 26 26 4,961.29 TH6 6 3 12/6/2004 12.3 Earthtech21 27 27 4,972.44 TH7 6 3 12/6/2004 12 Earthtech22 28 28 4,974.08 TH8 6 3 12/6/2004 16.5 Earthtech23 29 29 4,962.27 TH9 6 3 12/6/2004 21.5 Earthtech24 30 30 4,521.33 TH1 6 3 2/1/2005 3.5 Racon25 31 31 4,519.03 TH2 6 3 2/1/2005 5.3 Racon26 32 32 4,518.70 TH3 6 3 2/1/2005 5.6 Racon27 33 33 4,516.08 TH4 6 3 2/1/2005 4 Racon28 34 34 4,514.76 TH5 6 3 2/1/2005 3.3 Racon29 35 35 4,516.73 TH6 6 3 2/1/2005 4.5 Racon30 36 36 4,521.65 TH8 6 3 2/1/2005 3.8 Racon31 37 37 4,813.32 TH1 6 3 1/7/2008 16.5 Racon32 38 38 4,805.12 TH2 6 3 1/7/2008 10.5 Racon33 39 39 4,811.35 TH3 6 3 1/7/2008 15.5 Racon34 40 40 4,787.73 TH5 6 3 1/7/2008 16.5 Racon35 41 41 4,817.59 TH8 6 3 1/7/2008 6.5 Racon36 42 42 4,526.90 TH1 6 3 1/3/2008 13.5 Racon37 43 43 4,527.89 TH4 6 3 1/3/2008 16.5 Racon38 44 44 4,527.89 TH5 6 3 1/3/2008 15 Racon39 45 45 4,527.89 TH7 6 3 1/3/2008 11 Racon40 46 46 4,528.54 TH8 6 3 1/3/2008 12 Racon41 47 47 4,571.19 TH2 6 3 1/4/2008 31.5 Racon42 48 48 4,576.12 TH3 6 3 1/4/2008 31.5 Racon43 49 49 4,573.16 TH5 6 3 1/4/2008 16.5 Racon44 50 50 4,575.79 TH7 6 3 1/4/2008 6.5 Racon45 51 51 4,584.97 TH1 6 3 3/18/2010 6.5 GreatBasin46 52 52 4,587.60 TH3 6 3 3/18/2010 6.5 GreatBasin47 53 53 4,587.27 TH4 6 3 3/18/2010 16.5 GreatBasin48 54 54 4,595.14 TH7 6 3 3/18/2010 6.5 GreatBasin49 55 55 4,586.94 TH8 6 3 3/18/2010 16.5 GreatBasin50 56 56 4,588.25 TH9 6 3 3/18/2010 16.5 GreatBasin51 57 57 4,588.58 TH10 6 3 3/18/2010 24 GreatBasin52 58 58 4,543.64 B1 6 3 6/13/2002 9 Terracon53 59 59 4,546.92 B2 6 3 6/13/2002 9 Terracon54 60 60 4,547.90 B3 6 3 6/13/2002 9 Terracon

DRILLMETH ELEVEST GWDATE GWEST HAMMER_TYP LATITUDE LONGITUDE LATITEST NCORR NOTESRB 3 9/24/1999 1 Automatic 40.274914 111.722103 2RB 3 10/7/1999 1 Automatic 40.270642 111.719289 2RB 3 10/14/1999 1 Automatic 40.274878 111.7154 2RB 3 1/20/2009 1 Automatic 40.056393 111.732041 2RB 3 2/3/2009 1 Automatic 40.054746 111.732671 2RB 1 10/21/1993 1 Automatic 40.206546 111.656813 2RB 1 11/2/1998 1 Automatic 40.206351 111.660991 2RB 3 10/31/2003 1 Automatic 39.843517 110.998139 2RB 3 11/14/2003 3 Automatic 39.843956 110.995797 2RB 3 5/3/1984 2 Automatic 40.082603 111.58821 2RB 3 5/8/1984 1 Automatic 40.082538 111.589311 2

HollowStem 3 9/23/2002 2 Automatic 40.401861 111.929847 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 9/23/2002 2 Automatic 40.40205 111.928622 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 9/23/2002 2 Automatic 40.401781 111.927597 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 12/6/2004 2 Automatic 40.381264 111.977894 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 12/6/2004 2 Automatic 40.381333 111.978708 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 12/6/2004 2 Automatic 40.381206 111.979639 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 12/6/2004 2 Automatic 40.381678 111.979628 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 12/6/2004 2 Automatic 40.381747 111.978753 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 12/6/2004 2 Automatic 40.381747 111.977922 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 12/6/2004 2 Automatic 40.382181 111.977881 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 12/6/2004 2 Automatic 40.382197 111.978725 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 12/6/2004 2 Automatic 40.382128 111.979689 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 2/2/2005 1 Safety 40.372213 111.85819 2HollowStem 3 2/1/2005 2 Safety 40.371593 111.85815 2HollowStem 3 2/1/2005 2 Safety 40.370932 111.858146 2HollowStem 3 2/1/2005 2 Safety 40.370294 111.858195 2HollowStem 3 2/2/2005 1 Safety 40.370292 111.857623 2HollowStem 3 2/1/2005 2 Safety 40.370931 111.857591 2HollowStem 3 2/1/2005 2 Safety 40.372191 111.857647 2HollowStem 3 1/7/2008 2 Automatic 40.302677 111.897388 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 1/7/2008 2 Automatic 40.303049 111.89692 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 1/7/2008 2 Automatic 40.303307 111.897836 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 1/7/2008 2 Automatic 40.304186 111.897493 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 1/7/2008 2 Automatic 40.30382 111.898751 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 1/4/2008 1 Automatic 40.410678 111.887743 2HollowStem 3 1/3/2008 2 Automatic 40.410703 111.888884 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 1/3/2008 2 Automatic 40.410297 111.888913 2HollowStem 3 1/3/2008 2 Automatic 40.410393 111.887353 2HollowStem 3 1/3/2008 2 Automatic 40.410898 111.887406 2HollowStem 3 1/4/2008 2 Automatic 40.363335 111.926983 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 1/4/2008 2 Automatic 40.363348 111.927742 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 1/4/2008 2 Automatic 40.363761 111.926693 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 1/4/2008 2 Automatic 40.362497 111.927785 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/18/2010 2 Safety 40.367795 111.931683 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/18/2010 2 Safety 40.365825 111.931605 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/18/2010 2 Safety 40.366462 111.932634 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/18/2010 2 Safety 40.367764 111.934764 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/18/2010 2 Safety 40.36734 111.933285 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/18/2010 2 Safety 40.366315 111.933969 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/18/2010 2 Safety 40.366765 111.933578 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 6/13/2002 1 Automatic 40.389325 111.839987 2Continuous 3 6/13/2002 1 Automatic 40.389313 111.839723 2Continuous 3 6/13/2002 1 Automatic 40.389595 111.839699 2

REFERENCE REPORT RIGTYPE SITENAME EASTING NORTHING CE CB GEOLUNIT TESTDEPTHUDOT SP156(31)270 B61HDX University Qlf 86.5UDOT SP156(31)270 B61HDX University Qlf 85UDOT SP156(31)270 B61HDX University Qls 81.5UDOT I15over CME850 I15over Qlf 80UDOT I15over CME850 I15over Qlf 80UDOT SP156(25)262 B61HD UniversityAve Qla 160UDOT SP156(25)262 B61HD UniversityAve Qly 160UDOT US6from CME850 US6from Qc 50UDOT US6from CME850 US6from Qc 55UDOT FER028(41) B61 US89 Qfdp 33UDOT FER028(41) B61 US89 Qfdp 33.5UGS Proposed CME750 HarvestHills Qls 16.5UGS Proposed CME750 HarvestHills Qls 21UGS Proposed CME750 HarvestHills Qafm 16.5UGS EagleMountain CME750 EagleMountain Qls 10.5UGS EagleMountain CME750 EagleMountain Qls 16.5UGS EagleMountain CME750 EagleMountain Qls 6UGS EagleMountain CME750 EagleMountain Qls 8.5UGS EagleMountain CME750 EagleMountain Qls 20UGS EagleMountain CME750 EagleMountain Qla 12.3UGS EagleMountain CME750 EagleMountain Qla 12UGS EagleMountain CME750 EagleMountain Qls 16.5UGS EagleMountain CME750 EagleMountain Qls 21.5UGS AlpineSchool D120ATV AlpineSchool Qafy 16.5UGS AlpineSchool D120ATV AlpineSchool Qafy 16.5UGS AlpineSchool D120ATV AlpineSchool Qafy 16.5UGS AlpineSchool D120ATV AlpineSchool Qafy 16.5UGS AlpineSchool D120ATV AlpineSchool Qafy 16.5UGS AlpineSchool D120ATV AlpineSchool Qafy 26.5UGS AlpineSchool D120ATV AlpineSchool Qafy 16.5UGS SaratogaSprings D120AT SaratogaSprings Qafy 16.5UGS SaratogaSprings D120AT SaratogaSprings Qafy 10.5UGS SaratogaSprings D120AT SaratogaSprings Qafm 15.5UGS SaratogaSprings D120AT SaratogaSprings Qafm 16.5UGS SaratogaSprings D120AT SaratogaSprings Qafm 6.5UGS NorthLehi D120AT NorthLehi Qlf 31.5UGS NorthLehi D120AT NorthLehi Qlf 15.5UGS NorthLehi D120AT NorthLehi Qlf 17UGS NorthLehi D120AT NorthLehi Qlf 16.5UGS NorthLehi D120AT NorthLehi Qlf 16.5UGS SaratogaSprings D120AT VistaHeights Qlf 31.5UGS SaratogaSprings D120AT VistaHeights Qlf 16.5UGS SaratogaSprings D120AT VistaHeights Qlf 16.5UGS SaratogaSprings D120AT VistaHeights Qlf 6.5UGS Elementary MobileA.T ThunderRidge Qlf 5UGS Elementary MobileA.T ThunderRidge Qlf 6.5UGS Elementary MobileA.T ThunderRidge Qlf 16.5UGS Elementary MobileA.T ThunderRidge Qlf 6.5UGS Elementary MobileA.T ThunderRidge Qlf 16.5UGS Elementary MobileA.T ThunderRidge Qlf 16.5UGS Elementary MobileA.T ThunderRidge Qlf 24UGS LehiHighSchool CME75 LehiHighSchool Qafp 26.5UGS LehiHighSchool CME75 LehiHighSchool Qafp 16.5UGS LehiHighSchool CME75 LehiHighSchool Qafp 16.5

ID1 ID SITEIDNO BOREELEV BORING BoreDiam BoreDiamEs DATE_ DEPTHGW DRILLER55 61 61 4,544.29 B4 6 3 6/13/2002 8.5 Terracon56 62 62 4,588.25 B1 6 3 12/1/2004 17 Terracon57 63 63 4,602.03 B2 6 3 12/1/2004 17 Terracon58 64 64 4,593.18 B3 6 3 12/1/2004 32 Terracon59 65 65 4,594.49 B4 6 3 12/1/2004 17 Terracon60 66 66 4,806.43 TH2 6 3 2/6/2001 20 Earthcore61 67 67 4,811.35 TH3 6 3 2/7/2001 21.5 Earthcore62 68 68 4,814.30 TH4 6 3 2/7/2001 21.5 Earthcore63 69 69 4,809.06 TH5 6 3 2/7/2001 21.5 Earthcore64 70 70 4,880.91 TH3 6 3 6/21/2001 16.5 Earthtech65 71 71 4,885.50 TH5 6 1 6/21/2001 16.5 Earthtech66 72 72 4,867.78 TH7 6 1 6/22/2001 10 Earthtech67 73 73 4,874.67 TH9 6 1 6/22/2001 10 Earthtech68 74 74 4,875.66 TH11 6 1 6/22/2001 10 Earthtech69 75 75 4,874.34 TH14 6 1 6/22/2001 10 Earthtech70 76 76 4,864.50 B1 6 1 3/9/2001 16.5 AMEC71 77 77 4,864.50 B2 6 1 3/9/2001 9.5 AMEC72 78 78 4,854.99 B3 6 1 3/9/2001 16.5 AMEC73 79 79 4,853.02 B4 6 1 3/9/2001 14 AMEC74 80 80 4,856.30 B5 6 1 3/9/2001 11.5 AMEC75 81 81 4,854.33 B6 6 1 3/9/2001 16.5 AMEC76 82 82 4,847.77 B7 6 1 3/9/2001 10.5 AMEC77 83 83 4,847.11 B8 6 1 3/9/2001 11.5 AMEC78 84 84 4,850.07 B9 6 1 3/9/2001 10 AMEC79 85 85 4,842.85 B1 6 3 9/29/1999 16.5 Terracon80 86 86 4,834.65 B2 6 3 9/29/1999 16.5 Terracon81 87 87 4,850.07 B3 6 3 9/29/1999 16.5 Terracon82 88 88 4,845.14 B4 6 3 9/29/1999 16.5 Terracon83 89 89 4,828.41 B5 6 3 9/29/1999 21 Terracon84 90 90 4,834.97 B6 6 3 9/29/1999 21.5 Terracon85 91 91 4,857.28 B1 6 1 10/18/2005 16.5 GSH86 92 92 4,854.33 B2 6 1 10/18/2005 20.5 GSH87 93 93 4,840.55 B3 6 1 10/18/2005 21.5 GSH88 94 94 4,850.07 B4 6 1 10/18/2005 19 GSH89 95 95 4,849.74 B5 6 1 10/18/2005 20 GSH90 96 96 4,849.74 B6 6 1 10/18/2005 21.5 GSH91 97 97 4,846.78 B7 6 1 10/19/2005 18.5 GSH92 98 98 4,843.83 B8 6 1 10/19/2005 21.5 GSH93 99 99 4,845.80 B9 6 1 10/19/2005 22.5 GSH94 100 100 4,850.72 B10 6 1 10/19/2005 19.5 GSH95 101 101 4,849.74 B11 6 1 10/19/2005 21.5 GSH96 102 102 4,853.67 B12 6 1 10/19/2005 16.5 GSH97 103 103 4,869.42 B39 4 1 4/28/2003 11 Amec98 104 104 4,873.69 B40 4 1 4/28/2003 12.5 Amec99 105 105 4,873.03 B41 4 1 4/28/2003 9.5 Amec100 106 106 4,875.66 B42 4 1 4/28/2003 13 Amec101 107 107 4,868.44 B44 4 1 4/28/2003 10.5 Amec102 108 108 4,873.36 B51 4 1 4/28/2003 7.5 Amec103 109 109 4,792.32 B1 4 3 3/28/2001 21.5 Terracon104 110 110 4,746.72 B3 4 3 3/28/2001 11 Terracon105 111 111 4,683.07 B6 4 3 3/29/2001 20 Terracon106 112 112 4,777.23 B8 4 3 3/29/2001 17 Terracon107 113 113 4,809.71 B3 6 1 11/14/2002 21.5 Davisdrilling108 114 114 4,525.26 TH2 4 3 7/11/2006 16.5 Raycon109 115 115 4,528.87 TH6 4 3 7/11/2006 16.5 Raycon110 116 116 4,778.87 TH4 4 3 2/24/2005 10.5 Earthtech111 117 117 4,776.25 TH10 4 3 2/24/2005 10.5 Earthtech

DRILLMETH ELEVEST GWDATE GWEST HAMMER_TYP LATITUDE LONGITUDE LATITEST NCORR NOTESContinuous 3 6/13/2002 1 Automatic 40.389584 111.839977 2Continuous 3 12/1/2004 2 Automatic 40.368815 111.933359 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 12/1/2004 2 Automatic 40.368848 111.934884 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 12/1/2004 2 Automatic 40.368249 111.934002 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 12/1/2004 2 Automatic 40.367778 111.934581 2 GWTnotHollowStem 1 2/6/2001 2 Automatic 40.35925 111.968111 1 GWTnotHollowStem 1 2/7/2001 2 Automatic 40.35883 111.967655 1 GWTnotHollowStem 1 2/7/2001 2 Automatic 40.35932 111.967355 1 GWTnotHollowStem 1 2/7/2001 2 Automatic 40.358243 111.966663 1 GWTnotHollowStem 3 6/21/2001 2 Automatic 40.30488 112.018359 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 6/21/2001 2 Automatic 40.30498 112.018687 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 6/22/2001 2 Automatic 40.305316 112.018956 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 6/22/2001 2 Automatic 40.304694 112.019319 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 6/22/2001 2 Automatic 40.304314 112.018667 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 6/22/2001 2 Automatic 40.30503 112.017984 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/9/2001 2 Automatic 40.359932 111.979563 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/9/2001 2 Automatic 40.360523 111.978976 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/9/2001 2 Automatic 40.361379 111.979253 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/9/2001 2 Automatic 40.361838 111.978433 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/9/2001 2 Automatic 40.361314 111.978384 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/9/2001 2 Automatic 40.360063 111.978203 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/9/2001 2 Automatic 40.3609 111.977278 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/9/2001 2 Automatic 40.361519 111.977619 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 3/9/2001 2 Automatic 40.360744 111.978153 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 9/29/1999 2 Automatic 40.366596 111.975235 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 9/29/1999 2 Automatic 40.365719 111.97285 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 9/29/1999 2 Automatic 40.369304 111.974119 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 9/29/1999 2 Automatic 40.368273 111.972472 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 9/29/1999 2 Automatic 40.366854 111.970454 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 9/29/1999 2 Automatic 40.369393 111.970155 2 GWTnotHollowStem 2 10/18/2005 2 Automatic 40.372457 111.969002 2 GWTnotHollowStem 2 10/18/2005 2 Automatic 40.372046 111.969855 2 GWTnotHollowStem 2 10/18/2005 2 Automatic 40.371516 111.97059 2 GWTnotHollowStem 2 10/18/2005 2 Automatic 40.370788 111.971812 2 GWTnotHollowStem 2 10/18/2005 2 Automatic 40.370758 111.970624 2 GWTnotHollowStem 2 10/18/2005 2 Automatic 40.37155 111.969588 2 GWTnotHollowStem 2 10/19/2005 2 Automatic 40.371279 111.968811 2 GWTnotHollowStem 2 10/19/2005 2 Automatic 40.371483 111.967607 2 GWTnotHollowStem 2 10/19/2005 2 Automatic 40.371864 111.966882 2 GWTnotHollowStem 2 10/19/2005 2 Automatic 40.372188 111.968266 2 GWTnotHollowStem 2 10/19/2005 2 Automatic 40.372421 111.967484 2 GWTnotHollowStem 2 10/19/2005 2 Automatic 40.372604 111.96822 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 4/28/2003 2 Automatic 40.370808 111.978227 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 4/28/2003 2 Automatic 40.370518 111.979025 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 4/28/2003 2 Automatic 40.370298 111.979893 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 4/28/2003 2 Automatic 40.371261 111.979415 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 4/28/2003 2 Automatic 40.37099 111.97873 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 4/28/2003 2 Automatic 40.371256 111.977771 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 3/28/2001 2 Automatic 40.361529 111.959161 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 3/28/2001 2 Automatic 40.361381 111.948683 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 3/29/2001 2 Automatic 40.347385 111.945349 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 3/29/2001 2 Automatic 40.347511 111.958882 2 GWTnotContinuous 3 11/14/2002 2 Automatic 40.360975 111.96875 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 7/11/2006 2 Automatic 40.332499 111.902681 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 7/11/2006 2 Automatic 40.33416 111.905958 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 2/24/2005 2 Automatic 40.401374 111.933611 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 2/24/2005 2 Automatic 40.399726 111.934849 2 GWTnot

REFERENCE REPORT RIGTYPE SITENAME EASTING NORTHING CE CB GEOLUNIT TESTDEPTHUGS LehiHighSchool CME75 LehiHighSchool Qafp 16.5UGS Proposed D120 Northof Qlf 17UGS Proposed D120 Northof Qlf 17UGS Proposed D120 Northof Qlf 32UGS Proposed D120 Northof Qlf 17UGS NewAlpine CME750 Ponyexpress Qafy 21.5UGS NewAlpine CME750 Ponyexpress Qafy 21.5UGS NewAlpine CME750 Ponyexpress Qafy 21.5UGS NewAlpine CME750 Ponyexpress Qafy 21.5UGS EagleMountain CME550 EagleMountain Qc 16.5UGS EagleMountain CME550 EagleMountain Qc 16.5UGS EagleMountain CME550 EagleMountain Qc 10UGS EagleMountain CME550 EagleMountain Qc 10UGS EagleMountain CME550 EagleMountain Qc 10UGS EagleMountain CME550 EagleMountain Qc 10UGS AMEC1817 CME550 Travelersrest Qafy 16.5UGS AMEC1817 CME550 Travelersrest Qafy 9.5UGS AMEC1817 CME550 Travelersrest Qafy 16.5UGS AMEC1817 CME550 Travelersrest Qafy 14UGS AMEC1817 CME550 Travelersrest Qafy 11.5UGS AMEC1817 CME550 Travelersrest Qafy 16.5UGS AMEC1817 CME550 Travelersrest Qafy 10.5UGS AMEC1817 CME550 Travelersrest Qafy 11.5UGS AMEC1817 CME550 Travelersrest Qafy 10UGS TerraconNo CME75 Redhawkranch Qay 16.5UGS TerraconNo CME75 Redhawkranch Qay 16.5UGS TerraconNo CME75 Redhawkranch Qay 16.5UGS TerraconNo CME75 Redhawkranch Qafm 16.5UGS TerraconNo CME75 Redhawkranch Qafm 21UGS TerraconNo CME75 Redhawkranch Qay 21.5UGS GSHNo0176 B90 Withinthe Qls 16.5UGS GSHNo0176 B90 Withinthe Qls 20.5UGS GSHNo0176 B90 Withinthe Qls 21.5UGS GSHNo0176 B90 Withinthe Qls 19UGS GSHNo0176 B90 Withinthe Qls 20UGS GSHNo0176 B90 Withinthe Qls 21.5UGS GSHNo0176 B90 Withinthe Qls 18.5UGS GSHNo0176 B90 Withinthe Qls 21.5UGS GSHNo0176 B90 Withinthe Qls 22.5UGS GSHNo0176 B90 Withinthe Qls 19.5UGS GSHNo0176 B90 Withinthe Qls 21.5UGS GSHNo0176 B90 Withinthe Qls 16.5UGS AMEC3817 CME750 7000NRanches Qay 11UGS AMEC3817 CME750 7000NRanches Qay 12.5UGS AMEC3817 CME750 7000NRanches Qay 9.5UGS AMEC3817 CME750 7000NRanches Qay 13UGS AMEC3817 CME750 7000NRanches Qay 10.5UGS AMEC3817 CME750 7000NRanches Qay 7.5UGS TerraconNo CME75 Evansranch Qafm 21.5UGS TerraconNo CME75 Evansranch Qafm 11UGS TerraconNo CME75 Evansranch Qafy 20UGS TerraconNo CME75 Evansranch Qafm 17UGS GeotekNo0385 CME75 LDSmeeting Qay 21.5UGS EarthtecNo D120A.T. Wilshireestates Qafy 16.5UGS EarthtecNo D120A.T. Wilshireestates Qafy 16.5UGS earthtecno CME75ATV HarvestHills Qls 10.5UGS earthtecno CME75ATV HarvestHills Qafy 10.5

ID1 ID SITEIDNO BOREELEV BORING BoreDiam BoreDiamEs DATE_ DEPTHGW DRILLER112 118 118 4,525.26 TH1 4 3 6/11/2004 22 Overlanddrilling113 119 119 4,509.51 TH1 4 3 2/18/2004 3.5 Raycon114 120 120 4,509.19 TH6 4 3 2/18/2004 3.5 Raycon115 121 121 4,641.40 TH4 4 3 11/5/2001 10 Earthtech116 122 122 4,627.62 TH11 4 3 11/5/2001 10 Earthtech117 123 123 4,640.09 TH9 4 3 11/5/2001 20.5 Earthtech118 124 124 4,719.16 B2 6 1 2/5/2005 11 Amec119 125 125 4,539.37 B5 6 1 2/15/2005 15.5 Amec120 126 126 4,553.48 B7 6 1 2/16/2005 16.5 Amec121 127 127 4,562.66 B14 6 1 2/17/2005 16.5 Amec122 128 128 4,561.68 B23 6 1 2/18/2005 15.5 Amec123 129 129 4,510.17 B1 6 1 12/2/1998 3 Agra124 130 130 4,510.17 B2 6 1 12/2/1998 3.2 Agra125 131 131 4,520.34 TH1 6 3 1/2/2008 13.25 Raycon126 132 132 4,526.25 TH2 6 3 1/2/2008 16.5 Raycon127 133 133 4,532.15 TH3 6 3 1/2/2008 17 Raycon128 134 134 4,529.86 TH4 6 3 1/2/2008 16.5 Raycon129 135 135 4,505.58 TH1 6 3 10/13/1995 36.5 RB&G130 136 136 4,586.61 B4 6 3 11/9/1999 17 RB&G131 137 137 4,536.09 B4 6 3 8/7/2001 16.5 RB&G132 138 138 4,540.35 B9 6 3 8/7/2001 16.5 RB&G133 139 139 4,543.31 B15 6 3 8/7/2001 16.5 RB&G134 140 140 4,668.31 B7 8 1 4/28/2004 6 AGEC135 141 141 5,081.36 DH8 6 3 1/16/1990 5.9 UDOT136 142 142 5,703.08 B1 8 1 1/23/2006 31 IGES137 143 143 5,498.36 B5 8 1 1/26/2006 35.2 IGES138 144 144 5,745.74 B6 8 1 1/26/2006 30.7 IGES139 145 145 5,653.22 B7 8 1 1/26/2006 30.5 IGES140 146 146 4,592.85 B6 4 3 12/1/2004 17 Terracon141 147 147 4,603.35 TH1 4 3 1/12/2005 31.5 RayCon142 148 148 4,605.97 TH3 4 3 1/12/2005 16.5 RayCon143 149 149 5,294.29 SH1 4 3 3/21/2000 18 D&M144 150 150 4,642.06 TH1 4 3 5/14/2000 31.5 RCExploration145 151 151 4,641.73 TH5 4 3 5/14/2000 6 RCExploration146 152 152 4,916.01 B3 4 2 6/15/1999 30 Unknown147 153 153 4,680.45 B1 4 3 3/8/1999 21 Unknown148 154 154 4,656.17 B3 4 3 3/8/1999 21.5 Unknown149 155 155 4,750.66 B5 4 3 3/8/1999 16.5 Unknown150 156 156 4,704.07 B8 4 3 3/8/1999 16.5 Unknown151 157 157 5,360.24 B7 4 3 1/23/2002 37.5 MDF152 158 158 5,187.34 B8 4 3 1/21/2002 48 MDF153 159 159 5,173.23 B9 4 3 1/29/2002 70.5 MDF154 160 160 5,206.04 TH1 4 3 1/9/2002 48.5 Earthtech155 161 161 4,750.00 B6 4 3 7/21/1983 10 unknown156 162 162 4,751.64 B7 4 3 7/21/1983 10 unknown157 163 163 4,755.25 B8 4 3 7/21/1983 9.5 unknown158 164 164 4,771.00 B1 4 3 7/15/1983 15.5 unknown159 165 165 4,770.67 B3 4 3 7/15/1983 16 unknown160 166 166 4,770.01 B7 4 3 7/15/1983 16.5 unknown161 167 167 4,768.37 B10 4 3 7/15/1983 16 unknown162 168 168 4,642.06 B1 4 3 7/11/1983 3.5 unknown163 169 169 4,723.10 B1 4 3 6/1/1983 40 unknown164 170 170 4,729.33 B2 4 3 6/1/1983 40 unknown165 171 171 4,663.71 B4 4 3 6/1/1983 20 unknown166 172 172 4,683.73 B6 4 3 6/1/1983 50 unknown167 173 173 4,760.50 B7 4 3 6/1/1983 30 unknown168 174 174 4,784.78 B8 4 3 6/1/1983 31.5 unknown

DRILLMETH ELEVEST GWDATE GWEST HAMMER_TYP LATITUDE LONGITUDE LATITEST NCORR NOTESHollowStem 3 6/11/2004 2 Automatic 40.331062 111.899569 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 2/18/2004 2 Automatic 40.371205 111.882706 2HollowStem 3 2/18/2004 2 Automatic 40.371803 111.884469 2HollowStem 3 11/5/2001 2 Automatic 40.289915 111.881167 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 11/5/2001 2 Automatic 40.290251 111.87996 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 11/5/2001 2 Automatic 40.290091 111.880668 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 2/5/2005 2 Safety 40.383211 111.939623 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 2/15/2005 2 Safety 40.387713 111.91306 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 2/16/2005 2 Safety 40.38852 111.915259 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 2/17/2005 2 Safety 40.39046 111.916066 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 2/18/2005 2 Safety 40.391929 111.912112 2 GWTnotHollowStem 3 12/11/1998 1 Automatic 40.364268 111.865235 2HollowStem 3 12/11/1998 1 Automatic 40.364301 111.866297 2HollowStem 3 1/3/2008 1 Automatic 40.386321 111.90876 2HollowStem 3 1/2/2008 2 Automatic 40.387098 111.907426 2HollowStem 3 1/2/2008 2 Automatic 40.387118 111.910208 2HollowStem 3 1/2/2008 2 Automatic 40.386496 111.911336 2HollowStem 3 10/13/1995 2 Automatic 40.358597 111.899369 2HollowStem 3 11/9/1999 2 Automatic 40.32742 111.904523 2

triconerockbut 3 8/7/2001 2 Safety 40.38473 111.914738 2triconerockbut 3 8/9/2001 2 Safety 40.385776 111.914129 2triconerockbit 3 8/9/2001 2 Safety 40.386937 111.914206 2HollowStem 3 4/28/2004 2 Automatic 40.398398 111.924161 2

triconerockbit 1 1/16/1990 2 Automatic 40.337721 111.610203 2HollowStem 2 1/23/2006 2 Automatic 40.464789 111.825177 2HollowStem 2 1/26/2006 2 Automatic 40.46346 111.820384 2HollowStem 2 1/26/2006 2 Automatic 40.468415 111.821413 2HollowStem 2 1/25/2006 2 Automatic 40.472168 111.822049 2HollowStem 2 12/1/2004 2 Automatic 40.367042 111.933603 2HollowStem 2 1/12/2005 2 Automatic 40.236086 111.632881 2HollowStem 2 1/12/2005 2 Automatic 40.236821 111.632644 2HollowStem 1 3/21/2000 2 Automatic 40.293957 111.636976 2HollowStem 2 5/14/2000 2 Automatic 40.208715 111.626279 2HollowStem 2 5/14/2000 2 Automatic 40.209844 111.625943 2N.XCasing 2 6/15/1999 2 Automatic 40.310266 111.654786 2N.XCasing 2 3/8/1999 2 Automatic 40.216471 111.627019 2N.XCasing 2 3/8/1999 2 Automatic 40.214673 111.626907 2N.XCasing 2 3/8/1999 2 Automatic 40.215815 111.625795 2N.XCasing 2 3/8/1999 2 Automatic 40.21774 111.62725 2HollowStem 1 1/23/2002 2 Automatic 40.295556 111.636773 2HollowStem 1 1/21/2002 2 Automatic 40.292818 111.638653 2HollowStem 1 1/29/2002 2 Automatic 40.291323 111.638223 2HollowStem 2 1/9/2002 2 Automatic 40.296428 111.642463 2HollowStem 2 7/21/1983 2 Safety 40.295406 111.664429 2HollowStem 2 7/21/1983 2 Safety 40.295945 111.664476 2HollowStem 2 7/21/1983 2 Safety 40.29582 111.663299 2HollowStem 2 7/15/1983 2 Safety 40.293592 111.69642 2HollowStem 2 7/15/1983 2 Safety 40.293617 111.697 2HollowStem 2 7/15/1983 2 Safety 40.294337 111.696572 2HollowStem 2 7/15/1983 2 Safety 40.294369 111.697705 2HollowStem 2 7/11/1983 2 Safety 40.264436 111.660595 2HollowStem 2 6/1/1983 2 Safety 40.207551 111.623417 2HollowStem 2 6/1/1983 2 Safety 40.20686 111.62235 2HollowStem 2 6/1/1983 2 Safety 40.207153 111.625099 2HollowStem 2 6/1/1983 2 Safety 40.209431 111.624293 2HollowStem 2 6/1/1983 2 Safety 40.209448 111.62215 2HollowStem 2 6/1/1983 2 Safety 40.207421 111.621438 2

REFERENCE REPORT RIGTYPE SITENAME EASTING NORTHING CE CB GEOLUNIT TESTDEPTHUGS EarthtecNo04E CME55 KahnResidence Qafy 22UGS EarthtecNo04E D120 between2185 Qafy 31.5UGS EarthtecNo04E D120 between2185 Qafy 16.5UGS EarthtecNo01E CME750A.T. PelicanPoint Qafm 10UGS EarthtecNo01E CME750A.T. PelicanPoint Qafy 10UGS EarthtecNo01E CME750A.T. PelicanPoint Qafy 20.5UGS Amec5817 B53 SaratogaSprings Mgb 11UGS Amec5817 B53 SaratogaSprings Qlf 15.5UGS Amec5817 B53 SaratogaSprings Qlf 16.5UGS Amec5817 B53 SaratogaSprings Qlf 16.5UGS Amec5817 B53 SaratogaSprings Qlf 15.5UGS AGRA8817 CME75 LochLomond Qafy 31.5UGS AGRA8817 CME75 LochLomond Qafy 14UGS EarthtecNo D120 SouthofS.S Qlf 31.5UGS EarthtecNo D120 SouthofS.S Qlf 16.5UGS EarthtecNo D120 SouthofS.S Qlf 17UGS EarthtecNo D120 SouthofS.S Qlf 16.5UGS RB&G9501118 CME550 wastewater Qlf 24.5UGS RB&G9901092 CME550 BySSgolf Qafy 17UGS RB&GWardley CME55 shoppingcenter Qlf 16.5UGS RB&GWardley CME55 shoppingcenter Qlf 16.5UGS RB&GWardley CME55 shoppingcenter Qlf 16.5UGS AGEC1040264 CME55 westboundlane Qls 6UDOT F019(34) B61 Murdockto Qal 30UGS IGESNo00814 D120 Suncrestsubdiv Tvte 31UGS IGESNo00814 D120 Suncrestsubdiv Tt 35.2UGS IGESNo00814 D120 Suncrestsubdiv Tvte 30.7UGS IGESNo00814 D120 Suncrestsubdiv Tvte 30.5UGS TerraconNo D120 ThunderRidge QlfUGS EarthtecNo D120 ValleyVistas Qls 31.5UGS EarthtecNo D120 ValleyVistas Qls