Exhibit9_GeotechReport.pdf

Western Technologies

Inc.

GEOTECHNICAL

EVALUATION REPORT

BIG LAKE WATER TANKS

Big Lake, Arizona 85927 WT Reference No. 2527 JW077

PREPARED FOR:

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest

PO BOX 7039

Springerville, Arizona 85938 Attn: Mr. Richard Polanco

August 15, 2017

Expires 12-31-2018

Craig P. Wiedeman, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

&.UL 7r'l_�c�� _/ a:

Reviewed By: Bruce M. Macllroy, P.E. � -

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Geotechnical G Environmental I Inspections

2400 EAST HUNTINGTON DRIVE • FLAGSTAFF AZ 86004 • 928 774 8700 • www.wt-us.com Materials

ARIZONA • COLORADO • NEVADA • NEW MEXICO • UTAH

G Western 2400 East Huntington Drive Technologies Inc. Flagstaff, Arizona 86004-8934

The Quality People (928) 774-8700 • fax 774-6469 Since 1955

August 15, 2017

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest

PO BOX 7039

Springerville, Arizona 85938

Attn: Mr. Richard Polanco

Re: Geotechnical Evaluation Big Lake Water Tanks Big Lake, Arizona 85927

Job No. 2527 JW077

Western Technologies Inc. has completed the geotechnical evaluation for the proposed water storage tanks to be located in Big Lake, Arizona. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal number 2527PW117 dated July 3, 2017. The results of our study, including the boring location diagram, laboratory test results, boring logs, and the geotechnical recommendations are attached.

We have appreciated being of service to you in the geotechnical engineering phase of this project and are prepared to assist you during the construction phases as well. If design conditions change, or if you have any questions concerning this report or any of our testing, inspection, design and consulting services, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to working with you on future projects.

Sincerely, WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Geotechnical Engineering Services

C · P Wiedeman, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Copies to: Addressee (emailed}

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Job No. 2527JW077 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 PURPOSE

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.1 Field Exploration

3.2 Laboratory Analyses

3.3 Analyses and Report

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 Surface

4.2 Subsurface

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES

5.1 Laboratory Tests

5.2 Field Tests

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

6.2 Design Considerations

6.3 Foundations

6.4 Lateral Design Criteria

6.5 Drainage

6.6 Corrosivity

7.0 EARTHWORK

7.1 General

7.2 Site Clearing

7.3 Excavation

7.4 Tank Pad Preparation

7.5 Materials

7.6 Placement and Compaction

7.7 Compliance

8.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES………………………

9.0 LIMITATIONS

10.0 CLOSURE

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Job No. 2527JW077 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM ..................................................................................................... Plate 1

APPENDIX A

Definition of Terminology.................................................................................................................. A-1 Method of Soil Classification ............................................................................................................. A-2 Boring Log Notes ............................................................................................................................... A-3 Boring Logs ..............................................................................................................................A-4 to A-6

APPENDIX B

Laboratory Tests ...................................................................................................................... B-1 to B-6

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

BIG LAKE WATER TANKS

BIG LAKE, ARIZONA

JOB NO. 2527JW077

1.0 PURPOSE

This report contains the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed water storage tanks to be located near Big Lake, Arizona. The purpose of these services is to provide information and recommendations regarding:

foundation design parameters lateral earth pressures earthwork drainage corrosivity

Results of the field exploration, field tests, and laboratory testing program are presented in the

Appendices.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Based on information provided by Mr. Richard Polanco, the proposed project will consist of two steel water storage tanks with approximate heights of 26 feet, diameters of 22 feet, and capacities of 70,000 gallons. No foundation loading information was available at the time of this proposal. It is assumed that the tank bases will be at or near the existing site grade. Should any of our information or assumptions not be correct, we request that the Client notify WT immediately.

3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.1 Field Exploration

Three borings were each drilled to a depth of about 19 feet below the existing site grade in the proposed tank area. The borings were at the approximate locations shown on the attached boring location diagram. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A.

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Page 2 WT Job No. 2527JW077

Subsoils encountered during drilling were examined visually and sampled at selected depth intervals.

A field log was prepared for each boring. These logs contain visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as interpolation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final logs, included in Appendix A, represent our interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observations and tests of the field samples. The final logs describe the materials encountered, their thicknesses, and the locations where samples were obtained. The Unified Soil Classification System was used to classify soils. The soil classification symbols appear on the boring logs and are briefly described in Appendix A.

3.2 Laboratory Analyses

Laboratory analyses were performed on representative soil samples to aid in material classification and to estimate pertinent engineering properties of the on-site soils for preparation of this report. Testing was performed in general accordance with applicable

ASTM and Arizona methods. The following tests were performed and the results are presented in Appendix B.

Water content

Dry density

Compression

Expansion

Gradation

Plasticity

Soluble salts and sulfates

Corrosivity (ASTM A674)

Test results were utilized in the development of the recommendations contained in this report.

3.3 Analyses and Report

This geotechnical evaluation report includes a description of the project, a discussion of the field and laboratory testing programs, a discussion of the subsurface conditions, and design recommendations as required to satisfy the purpose previously described.

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Page 3

This report is for the exclusive purpose of providing geotechnical engineering and/or testing information and recommendations. The scope of services for this project does not include, either specifically or by implication, any environmental assessment of the Site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken. We are available to discuss the scope of such studies with you.

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 Surface

The proposed tank will be located within the Big Lake Recreation Area. The Site was bordered on the north by a steep slope down to the north, on the east and south by moderate slopes down to the east and south respectively, and on the west by a graded road providing access to the Site. An existing steel water tank with a concrete ringwall foundation was present in the locations of the proposed tanks, and was bordered by a chain link fence on all sides. The water intake pipe was connected to the eastern side of the existing tank and ran east toward Big Lake. The emergency outlet was located on the west side of the existing tank and was oriented northeast, draining down the slope on the northern side of the Site. The ground surface around the existing tank was covered with cinders, and was relatively flat. Basalt outcrops were present on the slopes adjacent to the area of the proposed tanks. The Site exhibited generally good surface drainage conditions by means of sheet flow down the existing slopes. Vegetation in the surrounding areas consisted of a moderate to heavy growth of native grasses, weeds, ferns, and pines trees.

4.2 Subsurface

As presented on the boring logs, surface soils to a depth of about 6 feet on the eastern side of the Site (Boring 2) were found to be Silty SAND fill materials with variable amounts of gravel. Our records do not indicate that the fill was placed under the observation and testing of a geotechnical engineer. Native soils underlying the existing fill soils, encountered from the surface in Borings 1 and 3, and extending to the full depth of exploration at all of the locations explored consisted of medium dense to very dense, medium plasticity Clayey SANDS, and medium dense to dense Silty SANDS, all containing variable amounts of gravel. Groundwater was not encountered in any boring at the time

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Page 4 of exploration. The logs in Appendix A show details of the subsurface conditions encountered during the field exploration.

The boring logs included in this report are indicators of subsurface conditions only at the specific location and date noted. Variations from the field conditions represented by the borings may become evident during construction. If variations appear, we should be contacted to re-evaluate our recommendations.

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES

5.1 Laboratory Tests

Laboratory test results indicate that existing subsoils exhibit low to moderately high compressibility at existing water contents. Low to moderate additional compression occurs when the water content is increased. When water was added to compacted samples of the near-surface soils, low expansion occurred.

5.2 Field Tests

Existing subsoils exhibited moderate to high resistance to penetration using the standard penetration test method (ASTM D1586) and test method ASTM D3550. The penetration resistances also exhibited some variability between test locations and with depth. This represents a potential for differential settlements within structures supported on the site soils in their existing condition.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

Recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the project criteria described in Section 2.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, and the assumption that the soil and subsurface conditions are those disclosed by the borings. Others may change the plans, final elevations, number and type of structures, foundation loads, and tank floor levels during design or construction. Substantially different subsurface conditions from those described herein may be encountered or become known. Any changes in the project criteria or subsurface conditions shall be brought to our attention in writing.

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Page 5

6.2 Design Considerations

The main geotechnical concern on this Site is the presence of the existing fill material. In order to provide proper support and uniform bearing conditions throughout the entire structure areas, we recommend that all of the existing fill material be completely removed and recompacted as engineered fill. The soils should be recompacted as recommended in the EARTHWORK section of this report. Proper drainage should be provided to help prevent infiltration of moisture below the tanks.

6.3 Foundations

If the recommendations contained in this report are followed, the tanks may be supported on perimeter ringwall foundations. The tanks should be supported on dense, undisturbed native soils and/or properly placed and compacted engineered fill following removal of all existing fill on the Site. The ringwall footings should bear at least 3.5 feet below the lowest adjacent finished grade. The footings may be designed to impose a maximum dead plus live-load pressure of up to 2500 pounds per square foot. The tank pads, prepared as recommended in the EARTHWORK section of the report, will be suitable to support a maximum dead plus live-load pressure of up to 2500 pounds per square foot. We anticipate that total and differential movements of the proposed tank structures, supported as recommended, should be within tolerable limits of the tank manufacturer.

Additional foundation movements could occur if water from any source infiltrates the foundation soils. Therefore, proper drainage should be provided in the final design and during construction.

We recommend that the geotechnical engineer or his representative observe the tank pads and perimeter ringwall excavations before reinforcing steel and concrete are placed.

It should be determined whether the soils exposed are similar to those anticipated for support of the footings. Any soft, loose or unacceptable soils should be undercut to suitable materials and backfilled with either lean mix or structural concrete.

6.4 Lateral Design Criteria

Lateral loads can be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 can be used between the ringwall foundations and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of natural soils or properly compacted fill can be approximated by the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 250 pounds per cubic

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Page 6 foot (psf/ft). The passive pressure and the frictional resistance of the soils can be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.

6.5 Drainage

The major cause of problems in this vicinity is moisture increase in soils below structures.

Therefore, it is extremely important that positive drainage be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the proposed tanks. Infiltration of water into utility or foundation excavations must be prevented during construction. No surface features which could retain water adjacent to the tanks should be constructed.

6.6 Corrosivity

Representative samples were tested for soil properties in regard to corrosivity to concrete and ductile iron pipe. For concrete, the soils were tested for salts and sulfates. For ductile iron pipe, the soils were tested for resistivity, pH, redox potential, sulfides, and moisture content.

The chemical test results indicate that the site soils are negligibly corrosive to concrete.

However, in order to be consistent with standard local practice and for reasons of material availability, we recommend that Type II Portland cement be used for all concrete on and below grade.

The laboratory test results indicate that the on-site soils exhibit low corrosive potential to ductile iron pipe. This information should be used as an aid in choosing the construction materials that will be in contact with these soils and corrosion protection methods. Pipe and material manufacturers' representatives should be contacted regarding the specific corrosivity resistance for their particular product.

7.0 EARTHWORK

7.1 General

The conclusions contained in this report for the proposed construction are contingent upon compliance with recommendations presented in this section. Any excavating, trenching, or disturbance which occurs after completion of the earthwork must be backfilled, compacted and tested in accordance with the recommendations contained

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Page 7 herein. It is not reasonable to rely upon our conclusions and recommendations if any future unobserved and untested trenching, grading or backfilling occurs.

7.2 Site Clearing

Strip and remove any remaining vegetation, debris, all existing fill material, and any other deleterious materials from the tank pad area. The tank pad area is defined as that area within the tank footprint plus 3 feet beyond the perimeter of the footprint. All exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions which could prevent uniform compaction.

Sloping areas steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical) should be benched to reduce the potential for slippage between existing slopes and fills. Benches should be level and wide enough to accommodate compaction and earth moving equipment.

7.3 Excavation

We anticipate that excavations into the site soils for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional equipment. On-site soils may pump or become unworkable at high water contents. Workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. Overexcavation of wet zones and replacement with drier granular materials may be necessary. The use of lightweight excavation and compaction equipment may be required to minimize subgrade pumping.

Cut and fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) to limit erosion, and to provide slope protection. Specific slope stability analyses were beyond the scope of this evaluation. However, our experience indicates that 2.5:1 compacted fill or cut slopes should be stable up to moderate heights of about 10 feet.

Slopes of 3:1 or flatter may be more desirable for maintenance. We are available for additional consultation or more detailed analysis when grading plans have been developed.

7.4 Tank Pad Preparation

Following removal of all existing fill material and prior to placement of new engineered fill materials, the exposed subgrade soils should be proof-rolled to verify that stable subgrade conditions exist. Any loose, soft, disturbed, or otherwise unsuitable materials should be overexcavated and replaced with engineered fill. The subgrade should then be

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Page 8 scarified, moistened as required, and recompacted for a minimum depth of 8 inches prior to placement of new engineered fill materials.

7.5 Materials

a. Clean, low expansive site soils with a maximum dimension of 6 inches or imported materials may be used as subbase fill, as backfill beneath the tank structure, and as backfill material outside of the tank area.

b. Frozen soils should not be used as fill or backfill.

c. Imported soils should conform to the following:

Gradation (ASTM C136):

percent finer by weight

6"

4" ........................................................................................................ 85-100

¾” ....................................................................................................... 70-100

No. 4 Sieve ......................................................................................... 50-100

No. 200 Sieve .................................................................................. 40 (max)

Maximum expansive potential (%)* ........................................................ 1.5

Maximum soluble sulfates (%) ............................................................... 0.10

* Measured on a sample compacted to approximately 95 percent of the

ASTM D698 maximum dry density at about 3 percent below optimum water content. The sample is confined under a 100 psf surcharge and submerged.

d. Base course should conform to Apache County specifications.

7.6 Placement and Compaction

a. Place and compact fill in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will produce recommended water contents and densities throughout the lift.

b. Uncompacted fill lifts should not exceed 8 inches.

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Page 9

c. Materials should be compacted to the following:

Minimum Percent

Material Compaction (ASTM D698)

On-site and imported soils, reworked and fill

Aggregate base

Backfill:

Structural

Nonstructural

d. On-site and imported soils with low expansive potential and aggregate base course materials should be compacted with a moisture content in the range of 3 percent below to 3 percent above optimum.

7.7 Compliance

Recommendations for structural elements supported on compacted fills or prepared subgrade depend upon compliance with EARTHWORK recommendations. To assess compliance, observation and testing should be performed under the direction of a geotechnical engineer.

8.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that a sufficient schedule of tests and observations will be performed during construction to verify compliance.

At a minimum, these tests and observations should be comprised of the following:

Observations and testing during site preparation and earthwork;

Observation of foundation excavations; and

Consultation as may be required during construction.

USDA Apache Sitgreaves National Forest Page 10

Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the best way to verify compliance, and to help you manage the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

9.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared assuming the project criteria described in Section 2.0. If changes in the project criteria occur, or if different subsurface conditions are encountered or become known, the conclusions and recommendations presented herein shall become invalid. In any such event, WT should be contacted in order to assess the effect that such variations may have on our conclusions and recommendations.

The recommendations presented are based entirely upon data derived from a limited number of samples obtained from two widely spaced borings. The attached logs are indicators of subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times noted. This report assumes the uniformity of the geology and soil structure between borings, however variations can and often do exist.

Whenever any deviation, difference or change is encountered or becomes known, WT should be contacted.

This report is for the exclusive benefit of our client alone. There are no intended third-party beneficiaries of our contract with the client or this report, and nothing contained in the contract or this report shall create any express or implied contractual or any other relationship with, or claim or cause of action for, any third party against WT.

This report is valid for the earlier of one year from the date of issuance, a change in circumstances, or discovered variations. After expiration, no person or entity shall rely on this report without the express written authorization of WT.

10.0 CLOSURE

We prepared this report as an aid to the designers of the proposed project. The comments, statements, recommendations and conclusions set forth in this report reflect the opinions of the authors. These opinions are based upon data obtained at the location of the borings, and from laboratory tests. Work on your project was performed in accordance with generally accepted standards and practices utilized by professionals providing similar services in this locality. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

Approximate Test Boring Location

Not to Scale

Plate: 1Job No.: 2527JW077

Western Technologies Inc.

Boring Location Diagram

Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity The recommended maximum contact stress developed at the interface of the foundation element and the supporting material.

Backfill A specified material placed and compacted in a confined area.

Base Course A layer of specified aggregate material placed on a subgrade or subbase.

Base Course Grade Top of base course.

Bench A horizontal surface in a sloped deposit.

Caisson/Drilled Shaft A concrete foundation element cast in a circular excavation which may have an enlarged base (or belled caisson).

Concrete Slabs‐On‐Grade A concrete surface layer cast directly upon base course, subbase or subgrade.

Crushed Rock Base Course A base course composed of crushed rock of a specified gradation.

Differential Settlement Unequal settlement between or within foundation elements of a structure.

Engineered Fill Specified soil or aggregate material placed and compacted to specified density and/or moisture conditions under observations of a representative of a soil engineer.

Existing Fill Materials deposited through the action of man prior to exploration of the site.

Existing Grade The ground surface at the time of field exploration.

Expansive Potential The potential of a soil to expand (increase in volume) due to absorption of moisture.

Fill Materials deposited by the actions of man.

Finished Grade The final grade created as a part of the project.

Gravel Base Course A base course composed of naturally occurring gravel with a specified gradation.

Heave Upward movement.

Native Grade The naturally occurring ground surface.

Native Soil Naturally occurring on‐site soil.

Rock A natural aggregate of mineral grains connected by strong and permanent cohesive forces. Usually requires drilling, wedging, blasting or other methods of extraordinary force for excavation.

Sand and Gravel Base Course A base course of sand and gravel of a specified gradation.

Sand Base Course A base course composed primarily of sand of a specified gradation.

Scarify To mechanically loosen soil or break down existing soil structure.

Settlement Downward movement.

Soil Any unconsolidated material composed of discrete solid particles, derived from the physical and/or chemical disintegration of vegetable or mineral matter, which can be separated by gentle mechanical means such as agitation in water.

Strip To remove from present location.

Subbase A layer of specified material placed to form a layer between the subgrade and base course.

Subbase Grade Top of subbase.

Subgrade Prepared native soil surface.

DEFINITION OF TERMINOLOGY

PLATE

A‐1

81WTI

091614

COARSE‐GRAINED SOILS

LESS THAN 50% FINES

FINE‐GRAINED SOILS

MORE THAN 50% FINES

GROUP

SYMBOLS

DESCRIPTION MAJOR

DIVISIONS

GROUP

SYMBOLS

DESCRIPTION MAJOR

DIVISIONS

GW

WELL‐GRADED GRAVEL OR WELL‐GRADED

GRAVEL WITH SAND, LESS THAN 5% FINES

GRAVELS

MORE THAN

HALF

OF COARSE

FRACTION

IS LARGER THAN

NO. 4

SIEVE SIZE

ML

SILT, SILT WITH SAND OR GRAVEL, SANDY SILT, OR

GRAVELLY SILT SILTS

AND

CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS

THAN 50

GP

POORLY‐GRADED GRAVEL OR POORLY‐GRADED

GRAVEL WITH SAND, LESS THAN 5% FINES CL

LEAN CLAY OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,

SANDY CLAY, OR GRAVELLY CLAY

GM

SILTY GRAVEL OR SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND,

MORE THAN 12% FINES OL

ORGANIC SILT OR ORGANIC CLAY OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY

GC

CLAYEY GRAVEL OR CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH

SAND, MORE THAN 12% FINES MH

ELASTIC SILT, SANDY ELASTIC SILT, OR GRAVELLY

ELASTIC SILT SILTS

AND

CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT

MORE

THAN 50

SW

WELL‐GRADED SAND OR WELL‐GRADED SAND

WITH GRAVEL, LESS THAN 5% FINES SANDS

MORE THAN

HALF

OF COARSE

FRACTION

IS SMALLER

THAN

NO. 4

SIEVE SIZE

CH

FAT CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, SANDY FAT CLAY, OR

GRAVELLY FAT CLAY

SP

POORLY‐GRADED SAND OR POORLY‐GRADED

SAND WITH GRAVEL, LESS THAN 5% FINES OH

ORGANIC SILT OR ORGANIC CLAY OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

SM

SILTY SAND OR SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL,

MORE THAN 12% FINES

PT PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

HIGHLY

ORGANIC

SOILS SC

CLAYEY SAND OR CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL,

MORE THAN 12% FINES

NOTE: Coarse‐grained soils receive dual symbols if they NOTE: Fine‐grained soils may receive dual classification contain 5% to 12% fines (e.g., SW‐SM, GP‐GC). based upon plasticity characteristics (e.g. CL‐ML).

SOIL SIZES CONSISTENCY

COMPONENT SIZE RANGE CLAYS & SILTS BLOWS PER FOOT

BOULDERS Above 12 in. VERY SOFT

SOFT

FIRM

STIFF

VERY STIFF

HARD

0 – 2 3 – 4 5 – 8 9 – 15 16 – 30

OVER 30

COBBLES 3 in. – 12 in.

GRAVEL

Coarse Fine

No. 4 – 3 in.

¾ in. – 3 in.

No. 4 – ¾ in.

SAND

Coarse

Medium Fine

No. 200 – No. 4

No. 10 – No. 4

No. 40 – No. 10 No. 200 – No. 40

RELATIVE DENSITY

SANDS & GRAVELS BLOWS PER FOOT

VERY LOOSE

LOOSE

MEDIUM DENSE

DENSE

VERY DENSE

0 – 4 5 – 10 11 – 30 31 – 50 OVER 50 Fines (Silt or Clay) Below No. 200

NOTE: Only sizes smaller than three inches are used to classify soils

NOTE: Number of blows using 140‐pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2‐inch‐OD

(1⅜‐inch ID) split‐barrel sampler (ASTM D1586).

PLASTICITY OF FINE GRAINED SOILS DEFINITION OF WATER CONTENT

PLASTICITY INDEX TERM DRY

SLIGHTLY DAMP

DAMP

MOIST

WET

SATURATED

1 – 7

8 – 20

Over 20

NON‐PLASTIC

LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

METHOD OF CLASSIFICATION

A‐2

81 WTI

090414

The number shown in "BORING NO." refers to the approximate location of the same number indicated on the "Boring Location Diagram" as positioned in the field by pacing or measurement from property lines and/or existing features, or through the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) devices. The accuracy of GPS devices is somewhat variable.

"DRILLING TYPE" refers to the exploratory equipment used in the boring wherein HSA = hollow stem auger, and the dimension presented is the outside diameter of the HSA used.

"N” in “BLOW COUNTS" refers to a 2‐inch outside diameter split‐barrel sampler driven into the ground with a 140 pound drop‐ hammer dropped 30 inches repeatedly until a penetration of 18 inches is achieved or until refusal. The number of blows, or “blow count”, of the hammer is recorded for each of three 6‐inch increments totaling 18 inches. The number of blows required for advancing the sampler for the last 12 inches (2nd and 3rd increments) is defined as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) “N”‐Value.

Refusal to penetration is considered more than 50 blows per 6 inches. (Ref. ASTM D1586).

"R" in “BLOW COUNTS" refers to a 3‐inch outside diameter ring‐lined split barrel sampler driven into the ground with a 140 pound drop‐hammer dropped 30 inches repeatedly until a penetration of 12 inches is achieved or until refusal. The number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches is defined as the “R” blow count. The “R” blow count requires an engineered conversion to an equivalent SPT N‐Value. Refusal to penetration is considered more than 50 blows per foot. (Ref. ASTM D3550).

“CS” in “BLOWS/FT.” refers to a 2½‐in. outside diameter California style split‐barrel sampler, lined with brass sleeves, driven into the ground with a 140‐pound hammer dropped 30 inches repeatedly until a penetration of 18 inches is achieved or until refusal.

The number of blows of the hammer is recorded for each of the three 6‐inch increments totaling 18 inches. The number of blows required for advancing the sampler for the last 12 inches (2nd and 3rd increments) is defined as the “CS” blow count. The “CS” blow count requires an engineered conversion to an equivalent SPT N‐Value. Refusal to penetration is considered more than 50 blows for a 6‐inch increment. (Ref. ASTM D 3550)

"SAMPLE TYPE" refers to the form of sample recovery, in which N = Split‐barrel sample, R = Ring‐lined sample, “CS” = California style split‐barrel sample, G = Grab sample, B = Bucket sample, C = Core sample (ex. diamond bit rock coring).

"DRY DENSITY (LBS/CU FT)" refers to the laboratory‐determined dry density in pounds per cubic foot. The symbol "NR" indicates that no sample was recovered.

"WATER (MOISTURE) CONTENT” (% of Dry Wt.) refers to the laboratory‐determined water content in percent using the standard test method ASTM D2216.

"USCS" refers to the “Unified Soil Classification System” Group Symbol for the soil type as defined by ASTM D2487 and D2488. The soils were classified visually in the field, and where appropriate, classifications were modified by visual examination of samples in the laboratory and/or by appropriate tests.

These notes and boring logs are intended for use in conjunction with the purposes of our services defined in the text. Boring log data should not be construed as part of the construction plans nor as defining construction conditions.

Boring logs depict our interpretations of subsurface conditions at the locations and on the date(s) noted. Variations in subsurface conditions and characteristics may occur between borings. Groundwater levels may fluctuate due to seasonal variations and other factors.

The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent our interpretation of the approximate boundary between soil or rock types based upon visual field classification at the boring location. The transition between materials is approximate and may be more or less gradual than indicated.

BORING LOG NOTES

A‐3

©81WTI

091614

SM

G

R

R

R

R

N

9.9

7.9

13.1

10.3

RED CINDER FILL (6 inches thick)

Silty SAND; with gravel, brown, medium dense to dense, slightly damp

Boring Stopped at 19 Feet

ELEVATION:

D E P T H

F E E T

Not Determined

R-

LOCATION:

N-

L O

C A

T

IO

N S A

N D

M A

Y C

H A

N G

E A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N W

IT

H

T

IM

E D

A T A

P R E S E N

T E D

I S A

S

IM

P L

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

BORING NO. 1DATE DRILLED:

O

F D

R Y

W T

S A

M P L E

FIELD ENGINEER: G. Burr

T H

IS

S

U M

M A

R Y

A P P L

IE

S O

N L Y

A T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N A

N D

A T T

H E T

IM

E O

F L

O G

G

IN

G C

O N

D

IT

IO

N

S M

A Y

D

IF

F E R A

T O

T H

E R

See Location Diagram

B L O

W S /F

T

U S C

S

G R A

P H

IC

C O

N T E N

T

B-

S A

M P L E T

Y P E

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES: Groundwater Not Encountered

EQUIPMENT TYPE: CME-75

WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2400 Huntington Drive

Flagstaff, AZ 86004-8934

DRILLING TYPE: 7"HSA

CA-

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

RING SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA MODIFIED SAMPLER

GRAB SAMPLE

BUCKET SAMPLE

PROJECT NO.: 2527JW077

G-

PLATE

7-13-17

D R Y

D E N

S

IT

Y (L

B S /C

U F

T

A-4

M O

IS

T U

R E

PROJECT: BIG LAKE WATER TANKS

BORING LOG

G

R

R

R

R

R

13.4

7.5

11.0

7.3

5.9

Silty SAND (FILL); with gravel, brown, medium dense, slightly damp

Silty SAND (NATIVE); with gravel, brown, medium dense to dense, slightly damp

Boring Stopped at 19 Feet

ELEVATION:

D E P T H

F E E T

Not Determined

R-

LOCATION:

N-

L O

C A

T

IO

N S A

N D

M A

Y C

H A

N G

E A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N W

E D

A T A

P R E S E N

T E D

I S A

S

IM

P L

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

BORING NO. 2DATE DRILLED:

O

F D

R Y

W T

S A

M P L E

FIELD ENGINEER: G. Burr

T H

IS

S

U M

M A

R Y

A P P L

IE

S O

N L Y

A T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N A

N D

A T T

H E T

IM

E O

F L

O G

G

IN

G C

O N

D

IT

IO

N

S M

A Y

D

IF

F E R A

T O

T H

E R

See Location Diagram

B L O

W S /F

T

U S C

S

G R A

P H

IC

C O

N T E N

T

B-

S A

M P L E T

Y P E

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES: Groundwater Not Encountered

EQUIPMENT TYPE: CME-75

WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2400 Huntington Drive

Flagstaff, AZ 86004-8934

DRILLING TYPE: 7"HSA

CA-

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

RING SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA MODIFIED SAMPLER

GRAB SAMPLE

BUCKET SAMPLE

PROJECT NO.: 2527JW077

G-

PLATE

7-13-17

D R Y

D E N

S

IT

Y (L

B S /C

U F

T

A-5

M O

IS

T U

R E

SC

50/7''

50/10''

50/6''

G

R

R

R

R

R

16.2

30.4

36.5

44.5

22.3

Clayey SAND; with gravel, brown, medium dense to very dense, moist to wet

Boring Stopped at 19 Feet

ELEVATION:

D E P T H

F E E T

Not Determined

R-

LOCATION:

N-

L O

C A

T

IO

N S A

N D

M A

Y C

H A

N G

E A

T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N W

E D

A T A

P R E S E N

T E D

I S A

S

IM

P L

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N

BORING NO. 3DATE DRILLED:

O

F D

R Y

W T

S A

M P L E

FIELD ENGINEER: G. Burr

T H

IS

S

U M

M A

R Y

A P P L

IE

S O

N L Y

A T T

H

IS

L O

C A

T

IO

N A

N D

A T T

H E T

IM

E O

F L

O G

G

IN

G C

O N

D

IT

IO

N

S M

A Y

D

IF

F E R A

T O

T H

E R

See Location Diagram

B L O

W S /F

T

U S C

S

G R A

P H

IC

C O

N T E N

T

B-

S A

M P L E T

Y P E

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES: Groundwater Not Encountered

EQUIPMENT TYPE: CME-75

WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2400 Huntington Drive

Flagstaff, AZ 86004-8934

DRILLING TYPE: 7"HSA

CA-

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

RING SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA MODIFIED SAMPLER

GRAB SAMPLE

BUCKET SAMPLE

PROJECT NO.: 2527JW077

G-

PLATE

7-13-17

D R Y

D E N

S

IT

Y (L

B S /C

U F

T

A-6

M O

IS

T U

R E

FLG-Soil Properties v2.1

Boring No.

Depth (ft)

USCS

Class.

Particle Size Distribution (%) Passing by Weight

Atterberg Limits

Laboratory Compaction Characteristics

Remarks

3” ¾” #4 #10 #40 #200 2μ LL PI Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture

Method

NOTE: NP = Non-plastic μ = microns (2μ = 0.002mm)

REMARKS

Classification / Particle Size / Moisture-Density Relationship

1. Visual

2. Laboratory Tested

3. Minus #200 Only

4. Test Method ASTM D698/AASHTO T99

5. Test Method ASTM D1557/AASHTO T180

6. From the ADOT Family of Curves

B-1

JOB NO.: 2527JW077

SOIL PROPERTIES

1 0.5-5 SM 100 99 72 62 48 31.6 NP 2

2 0-5 SM 100 98 67 57 42 24.1 NP 2

3 0-5 SC 100 90 78 71 58 40.3 46 20 2

FLG-Soil Properties v2.3

Boring No.

Depth (ft.)

USCS

Class.

Initial Dry

Density (pcf)

Initial Water

Content

Compression Properties Expansion Properties Plasticity

Percent Passing

#200

Soluble Remarks

Surcharge (ksf)

Total Compression (%) Surcharge

(ksf) Expansion

LL PI Salts

(ppm) Sulfate (ppm) In-Situ After

Saturation

2 0-5 SM 111.2 13.5 0.1 0.6 122 3 1,2

Notes: Initial Dry Density and Initial Water Content are remolded.

Remarks

1. Compacted density (approx. 95% of ASTM D698 max. density at moisture content slightly below optimum.)

2. Submerged to approximate saturation. PLATE

B-2

JOB #: 2527JW077

1 0.5-5 SM 113.3 12.7 0.1 0 317 6 1,2

FLG-Soil Properties v2.0

CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS

Analysis Results Points

Resistivity (ohm-cm) 4400 0 pH 6.62 3

Redox Potential (mV) +34.4 4

Sulfides trace 2

Moisture good 0

Analysis Results Points

Resistivity (ohm-cm) 3900 0 pH 7.16 3

Redox Potential (mV) +21.1 4

Sulfides trace 2

Moisture good 0

Total Points 9

The test procedure states that if the sum of the points is less than 10, the soil is considered non-corrosive to ductile iron pipe and special protection against exterior corrosion is not necessary. This conclusion is limited to soil corrosion and does not include consideration of stray direct current.

B-3

JOB NO. 2527JW077

Total Points 9

Boring 2(0-5):

The procedures for soil survey tests and observations can be found in Appendix X1.1 of ASTM A674-10 and includes five soil properties: earth resistivity • pH • redox potential • sulfides • moisture.

Boring 1(0-5 feet):

COMPRESSION TEST REPORT

P e rc e n t S tr a in

15.0

13.5

12.0

10.5

9.0

7.5

6.0

4.5

3.0

1.5

0.0

Applied Pressure - psf

0.1 1 10

Water Added

Natural Dry Dens.

LL PI

Sp. Overburden eo

Swell Press. Clpse.

CrSat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (psf) (psf)

27.2 % 7.9 % 93.6 2.65 0.768 2.2

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL SM

B-4

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source: RING SAMPLE Depth: 5-6 FEET Sample No.: BORING 1

Western Technologies, Inc.

Flagstaff, AZ Plate

2527JW077 APACHE-SITGREAVES NAT'L FOREST

e rc e n t S tr a in

4.0

3.6

3.2

2.8

2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0

Applied Pressure - psf

0.1 1 10

Water Added

Natural Dry Dens.

LL PI

Sp. Overburden eo

Swell Press. Clpse.

CrSat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (psf) (psf)

38.7 % 7.5 % 109.4 2.65 0.513 0.1

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL SM

B-5

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source: RING SAMPLE Depth: 5-6 FEET Sample No.: BORING 2

Western Technologies, Inc.

Flagstaff, AZ Plate e rc e n t S tr a in

4.0

3.6

3.2

2.8

2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0

Applied Pressure - psf

0.1 1 10

Water Added

Natural Dry Dens.

LL PI

Sp. Overburden eo

Swell Press. Clpse.

CrSat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (psf) (psf)

38.0 % 16.2 % 77.7 2.65 1.129 0.9

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL SC

B-6

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source: RING SAMPLE Depth: 2-3 FEET Sample No.: BORING 3

Western Technologies, Inc.

Flagstaff, AZ Plate