Exhibit 1 - Geotechnical Evaluation and Utility Research Report.pdf

Professional Architect-Engineer (A-E) Services

For Shitike Creek Bridge Crossing Specialty Geotechnical Assessment

Contract Number: 75H70120D00024

Task Order Number: 75H70121F300003

Geotechnical Evaluation and Utility Research Report

April 19, 2021, Revised May 17, 2021

A temporary permit to practice in Oregon has been granted to Xuehua Bai valid only until official action is taken on May 11, 2021 for Oregon registration

Bai Engineers

5350 DTC Pkwy, #206 Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 www.bai-eng.com

IHS Task Order # 75H70121F300003 Geotechnical & Utility Research Report

TOC - 1 Bai Engineers | xbai@bai-eng.com

Table of Contents

Section 1 – Introduction Section 2 – Geotechnical Assessment Section 3 – Utilities Research Section 4 – CenturyLink Phone Line Relocation Requirements Section 5 – Warm Springs Water Main Relocation Improvements Section 6 – List of Digital Files

1 Bai Engineers | xbai@bai-eng.com

Section 1 – Introduction

The purpose of this project is to present the geotechnical assessment and utility research work performed for the proposed water line crossing at Shitike Creek of Warm Springs, Oregon. The project is related to add a new 16” water line to the Warm Springs Community Water System (EPA Public Water ID #104101247).

Bai Engineers was awarded the task order on March 17, 2021 and received the notice-to-proceed (NTP) on March 18, 2021. The performed period is 84 days meaning the project is required to be completed on June 02, 2021. There are two tasks including:

• Task 1 Soil borings evaluation

• Task 2 Private and public utilities research and locates for the project area

The limits of the project area are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Geographical Project Limits

The report is organized into the following sections besides this Introduction section.

• Section 2. Geotechnical Assessment

• Section 3. Utilities Research

• Section 4. CenturyLink Phone Line Relocation Requirements

• Section 5. Warm Springs Water Main Relocation Improvement

2 Bai Engineers | xbai@bai-eng.com

• Section 6. List of Digital Files

Section 2 – Geotechnical Assessment

Eight geological boreholes were drilled to replace the test pits. The work was performed between April 12 and April 13, 2021. The proposed subsurface exploration consisted of drilling eight geotechnical borings to a target depth of 15 feet below existing site grade along the proposed water main alignment. The borings were drilled to depths in the range of 7.5 to 14.5 feet below existing site grade, due to drill auger refusal within the gravel/cobble/boulder stratum. The summary of the groundwater table from the soil boring data is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Groundwater Table

Boring No.

Total Exploration

Depth (ft)

Groundwater Level while

Drilling (feet)

Groundwater Level

Immediately After Drilling

(feet)

Groundwater Level

Measurement 24 hours After

Drilling (feet)

B-01 Auger Refusal at 10.0

3.75 3.67 3.42

B-02 Auger Refusal at 10.0

3.33 3.25 3.42

B-03 14.5 3.33 3.25 2.50

B-04 Auger Refusal at 8.5

Not Encountered Not Encountered Not Encountered

B-05a Auger Refusal at 4ft at first attempt;

conducted coring and extended boring to 8ft at second attempt.

Not Encountered Not Encountered N/A

B-05b Not Encountered Not measured due to introduction of coring fluids

B-06 Auger Refusal at 11.5

11.30 11.00 9.00

B-07 Auger Refusal at 7.5

Not Encountered N/A N/A

B-08 Auger Refusal at 11.5

9.42 9.33 N/A

Based on the subsurface exploration, native soils were encountered at the surface and extended to the bottom of the borehole depth. The native soils generally encountered are as follows:

• Medium stiff to very stiff clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel.

• Very stiff to hard silt with varying amounts of sand and gravel;

• Very loose to very dense sand with varying amounts of clay, silt, and gravel.

• Loose to very dense gravel, with varying amounts of clay, silt, and sand.

3 Bai Engineers | xbai@bai-eng.com

Bedrock was not encountered in any of the borings completed as part of this study.

During the subsurface exploration, groundwater was encountered at depths in the range of approximately 3 to 11 feet below existing site grade. Based on groundwater level observations made during the subsurface exploration, it is anticipated that groundwater will be encountered during installation of the water main.

Based on the Logs of Boring, conventional excavation equipment can be used to excavate native clay and sand soils along the alignment where subsurface investigations were performed. Dense to very dense gravel and cobbles/boulders will require heavy construction equipment to excavate these bedrock materials. We do not anticipate rock blasting would be required for the proposed trench excavation depths.

Sulfate and chloride content test results indicated the subsurface materials, exhibit a low corrosion potential to steel and concrete.

Minimum soil box resistivity testing results indicate the soils exhibit “Mildly Corrosive” characteristics based on FHWA-NHI-09-087.

The detailed geotechnical investigation report is provided in Appendix 1.

Section 3 – Utilities Research

There are two kinds of private and public utilities within the project limits. They are:

• Wet Utilities – the wet utilities include water, sewer collection, and stormwater facilities owned by the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (Warm Springs).

• Dry Utilities – the dry utilities specifically for this project include (1) CenturyLink phone services, and (2) Pacific Power and Light electrical services.

A total of 31 potential utility conflict locations were identified. The geographical locations of the 31 conflicts are shown in Figure 2.

Inquiries were made to the Pacific Power and Light locator regarding the utility depth in the project area. The average underground electrical line depth is 3 feet. However, it is recommended that potholed might be required. The inquiry and response record for Pacific Power and Light is provided in Appendix 9.

4 Bai Engineers | xbai@bai-eng.com

Figure 2. Geographical Location Map of Potential Utility Conflicts

The AutoCAD data layers and utility matrix datasets are provided in Appendix 2.

In addition, the wet utility data including water and sewer mains are provided in the Warm Springs Webmap. The Webmap access instruction is provided in Appendix 3.

The remaining wet and dry utility information is illustrated in Figure 3 and Appendix 4.

5 Bai Engineers | xbai@bai-eng.com

Figure 3. Photos of Stormwater and Wet Utility Conflicts From Left to Right: STA 6+70 (#1 Storm), STA 14+90 (#6 Storm), STA 16+60 (#10 Storm), STA 17+20 (#11 Storm), STA 22+00 (#15, 17, 19 Sewer MH-001), STA 24+00 (#18 Storm)

Section 4 – CenturyLink Phone Line Relocation Requirements

Due to the conflict with the proposed 16” water line at the existing bridge crossing Shitike Creek, the relocation of the existing 4-inch conduit owned by CenturyLink is required. CenturyLink relocation team was contacted as early as April 12, 2021 with the following items:

1. Relocation / Design / Approval / Inspection Procedure

2. Reviewer personnel and contact information

3. Associated Fee

4. As-Built drawings, GIS files, or plan sheets if there is any

A map was submitted to CenturyLink, which is shown in Figure 4 and Appendix 5.

6 Bai Engineers | xbai@bai-eng.com

Figure 4. Map of CenturyLink Utility Relocation at the Existing Bridge Crossing Shitike Creek

The activity update is summarized as:

• Contact via Email: The CenturyLink relocation team was contacted via email relocations@lumen.com on April 12, 2021.

• Follow-up on April 15, 2021: Follow up email to the CenturyLink relocation team was sent on April 15, 2021.

• Follow-up on April 19, 2021: Follow up call to CenturyLink was conducted on April 19, 2021, BE’s contact information and 811 ticket number were provided to Jason, the relocation team supervisor.

• Follow-up on April 26, 2021: Follow up call to CenturyLink was conducted on April 26, 2021, a follow up email was sent to the CenturyLink relocation team per instruction provided by CenturyLink.

Records of phone line relocation inquiry are provided in Appendix 7.

Recommendations on CenturyLink phone relocation design.

• CenturyLink has recently rebranded to Lumen Technology. Fortunately, the point of contact person for phone line relocation design is Ms. Marnie Varner. Ms. Varner can be reached via email (mvarner@terratechllc.net) or phone (815-847-0935).

• It is required the final pipe line design plans should be submitted to Ms. Varner’s team.

mailto:mvarner@terratechllc.net

7 Bai Engineers | xbai@bai-eng.com

There is no as-built plan available from CenturyLink. Therefore, the depths of the existing phone lines are unknown.

Section 5 – Warm Springs Water Main Relocation Improvements

The operation staff at Warm Springs were contacted. The following water main relocations are required. Improvements will be made to the existing water mains at the Elma-Quinn Memorial Park (Park):

1. The existing 6” potable water main and the Elmer Quinn PRV at the Elmer- Quinn Memorial Park (Park): Currently, there are no active or future planned connections served by the Elmer Quinn PRV. The PRV will be abandoned and salvaged to the Warm Springs Utility Shop. The existing 6” potable water main will be capped at Station STA 27+00. The 6” potable water main west of the cap will be abandoned.

2. The existing 4” potable water main at the Park: The existing 4” line that comes from the North and serves the Park area was not actively in use. The line will be capped and abandoned in place within the Community Center parking lot. In addition, a new fire hydrant will be added on the 4” line at the Community Center to provide the fire flow capacity at the Community Center area.

3. The existing 3/4” service line from the 8” water main to the water hose at the Park: The existing 3/4” service line will cross the proposed 16” water main. This line will be abandoned. A new 3/4” service line will be constructed from the 6” water main and tie-in to the existing 3/4” service line at Station STA 24+20. The relocation of the service line will consolidate the service lines in the Park area for future water metering.

4. The section of 4” potable water main South of the Wolford Canyon Road:

The existing 4” water main across Shitike Creek was not actively in use. This line will be capped and abandoned in place.

The geographical locations of the Warm Springs water main relocation projects are shown in Figure 5 and Appendix 6.

8 Bai Engineers | xbai@bai-eng.com

Figure 5. Geographical Locations of Existing Water Main Relocation Requirements

Section 6 – List of Digital Files

Per review comments listed in the email authored by LT Derek Hancey, PE dated April 29, 2021, a formal response Technical Memorandum was developed along with the following digital files:

• “Shitke_Creek_Utilities_Crossing_and_BorHoles_Points” dated May 01, 2021.

• “WarmSprings_Sewer_Shapefiles_20210511” dated May 11, 2021.

• “WarmSprings_Water_Shapefiles_20210511” dated May 11, 2021.

9 Bai Engineers | xbai@bai-eng.com

Appendix 8 listed the LT Hancey’s email and BE’s Technical Memorandum.

APPENDIX 1

www.BeyondET.com

3011-B South County Road 1260 Midland, TX 79706

432.561.5780 www.BeyondET.com engineering beyond limits

May 14, 2021 Via email: xbai@bai-eng.com

Attn: Xuehua Bai Bai Engineers, LLC 5350 DTC Parkway, Suite 206 Greenwood Village, CO 80113

Reference: Geotechnical Report

Shitike Creek Bridge Crossing Warm Springs, Oregon BEYOND Project No. GT2103010

Dear Mr. Bai:

Beyond Engineering and Testing, LLC (BEYOND) is pleased to present our geotechnical engineering study for the proposed construction of the Shitike Bridge Crossing in Warm Springs, Oregon. Bai Engineers, LLC (Client) commissioned this geotechnical engineering study to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site, develop geotechnical design parameters, and provide related construction recommendations for the project. Our geotechnical report describes our field exploration and laboratory testing program, our engineering interpretation pertinent to the project, as well as earthwork guidelines for the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. We look forward to working with you on construction materials testing services during construction phase. Note that BEYOND is already under contract with Client for this project. As such, a simple change order is needed to approve testing services during construction phase. Please call us if you have any questions concerning this report or any of our other services.

Respectfully submitted, Beyond Engineering and Testing, LLC

Sam Chama Staff Geologist

GEOTECHNICAL

REPORT

SHITIKE CREEK BRIDGE CROSSING

WARM SPRINGS, OREGON

Prepared For:

BAI ENGINEERS, LLC

5350 DTC PARKWAY, SUITE 206

GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80113

Prepared By:

Midland, Texas 79706

432.561.5780 | www.BEYONDET.com

May 14, 2021 BEYOND Project No. GT2103010

Geotechnical Report

This Report Prepared By:

Midland, TX 79706

432.561.5780 | www.BeyondET.com

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Sam Chama Zhigang “Winter” Yao, P.E.

Staff Geologist Senior Geotechnical Engineer

May 14, 2021 Project No. GT2103010

UNAUTHORIZED USE OR COPYING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY ANYONE OTHER

THAN THE CLIENT FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT.

5/14/2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Regional Geology

4.2 Subsurface Stratigraphy

4.3 Groundwater Conditions

5.0 LABORATORY TESTS

5.1 Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

5.2 Soil Corrosiveness

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Installation by Open-Cut Method

6.2 Pipe Systems Thrust Restraint

6.3 Bottom Stability

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA

7.1 Site Preparation

7.2 Trench Excavation

7.3 Construction Dewatering

7.4 Open Excavations

7.5 Bedding, Fill and Backfill Materials for Pipeline

7.6 Drainage

8.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX A

Figure 1: Project Site Location Map Figure 2: Borehole Locations Map Figure 3: Site Vicinity Geologic Map Log of Boring Key Logs of Boring Subsurface Fence Diagrams Photographic Records of Rock Cores Grain Size Distribution Test Results Summary of Laboratory Test Results Sulfate and Chloride Testing Results – EPA 300/300.1 Minimum Resistivity and pH Test Results – ASTM G187 and ASTM G51

5/14/2021 \ Page 1

Geotechnical Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Beyond Engineering and Testing, LLC (BEYOND) is pleased to present our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed construction of the Shitike Creek Bridge Crossing project. The approximate project location is shown on Figure 1, Project Site Location Map, within Appendix A.

The purpose of this geotechnical investigation and report is to:

Explore subsurface conditions;

Conduct field and laboratory testing to characterize the engineering properties of subsurface materials;

Provide geotechnical engineering parameters for the design and construction; and

Provide earthwork requirements.

The recommendations contained in this report are based upon field and laboratory test results, engineering analyses, experience with similar subsurface conditions, and our project understanding.

2.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

BEYOND understands the proposed project will consist of installing 3,200 lineal feet of buried 16-inch ductile iron or PVC water main and a bridge mounted crossing to remove the main from the Shitike Creek channel and floodplain. The proposed water main will be installed at an invert depth of approximately seven feet below existing site grade.

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

BEYOND prepared and executed a field exploration program for the proposed project on April 12 through April 14, 2021. The proposed subsurface exploration consisted of drilling eight geotechnical borings to a target depth of 15 feet below existing site grade along the proposed water main alignment. The borings were drilled to depths in the range of 7.5 to 14.5 feet below existing site grade, due to drill auger refusal within the gravel/cobble/boulder stratum. The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2, Borehole Locations Map, within Appendix A of this report. A summary of approximate geographic latitude and longitude coordinates and depth of each boring drilled as part of the subsurface exploration program is presented in Table 3.0.1.

5/14/2021 \ Page 2

Table 3.0.1 – Summary of Boring Locations and Depths

Boring No.

Latitude

(degrees) Longitude (degrees) Total Boring Depth (feet)

B-01 44.760544 -121.272131 Auger Refusal at 10.0

B-02 44.760346 -121.270660 Auger Refusal at 10.0

B-03 44.760105 -121.269417 14.5

B-04 44.760375 -121.268364 Auger Refusal at 8.5

B-05 44.761523 -121.267388 Auger Refusal at 4ft at first attempt; conducted coring and extended boring to 8ft at second attempt.

B-06 44.762241 -121.267828 Auger Refusal at 11.5

B-07 44.762473 -121.269314 Auger Refusal at 7.5

B-08 44.762765 -121.270626 Auger Refusal at 11.5

Notes: Latitude and longitude coordinates provided in Table 3.0.1 were obtained from a hand-held GPS device with accuracy of approximate 15 to 20 feet.

We utilized hollow stem auger drilling methods to advance the boreholes to near the target depth of exploration of 15 feet, or to a depth of practical auger refusal. At most boring locations, auger refusal was encountered due to dense to very dense gravels or cobbles and/or boulders. We collected samples using Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) split spoon samplers. We collected all samples from the samplers in the field, performed visual soil classification, labeled the samples as to location and depth, and bagged soil samples to minimize moisture changes. We conducted the SPT tests in general accordance with ASTM D1586: Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. SPT test results are shown on the attached Boring Logs under the “Field Data” column and are preceded by the letter “N”. SPT testing was performed using automatic hammer.

HQ3 coring techniques, with a 2 3/8-inch inside diameter HQ3 wire-line core barrels, were utilized to advance Boring No. B-5b to a depth of 5 feet below practical auger refusal to further explore the materials encountered. Based on the core samples obtained, the rock-like materials consisted of cobbles and boulders instead of continuous bedrock, with a core recovery ratio of 40%.

BEYOND prepared field logs for each boring drilled. The field logs contain visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as interpolation of the subsurface conditions between samples. We also observed for groundwater level in the borehole while advancing the boreholes. These observations are discussed in subsequent sections of this report.

The project engineer reviewed the field logs, samples, and laboratory data to make appropriate modifications to the field logs. BEYOND classified soils in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The soil classification symbols on the boring logs are described in the Boring Log Key included in Appendix A. The final logs of boring include modifications based on our laboratory test results and observations performed on the soil samples collected in the field.

The final logs of boring describe the materials encountered, strata thickness, the various depths at which the samples were obtained, as well as field test results.

5/14/2021 \ Page 3

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Regional Geology

Quaternary Period Units

Alluvial Deposits (Qal): Deposits of unconsolidated sediments, including undifferentiated deposits of alluvium, colluvium, terrace deposits, glacial, eolian, lacustrine, and glacial outburst floods. Material includes clay, silt, sand, and gravel, with cobble- and boulder-sized clasts.

Gravel Deposits (Qg): Predominantly well-sorted andesitic gravel reworked by streams emerging from the Cascade Mountains, and surrounding area, to the west. Deposits include clasts of cobble- and boulder-size, with minor clay, silt, and sand. Some gravel and clasts may be of local origin.

Tertiary Period Units

John Day Formation (Tjd): In the area of the Shitike Creek Bridge Waterline Crossing project site, the Formation consists of air-fall and water-laid tuffs and tuffaceous clays, with minor welded tuffs and argillized coarse pumice tuffs. The base of the formation is typically visible by a thick red saprolite developed on the underlying Clarno Formation.

The John Day Formation was not encountered in any of the boreholes drilled as a part of this letter report.

Site vicinity geologic map is shown on Figure 3 within Appendix A of this report.

4.2 Subsurface Stratigraphy

As indicated on our logs of borings drilled as part of this study, native soils were encountered at the surface and extended to the bottom of the borehole depth. The native soils generally encountered are as follows:

Medium stiff to very stiff clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel.

Very stiff to hard silt with varying amounts of sand and gravel;

Very loose to very dense sand with varying amounts of clay, silt, and gravel.

Loose to very dense gravel, with varying amounts of clay, silt, and sand.

Bedrock was not encountered in any of the borings completed as part of this study.

The above descriptions are general and depth ranges are approximate because boundaries between different strata are seldom clear and abrupt in the field. In addition, the lines separating major strata types on the logs of borings do not necessarily represent distinct lines of demarcation of the various strata. Detailed logs of borings for locations drilled as part of this study, which present the stratum descriptions, types of sampling used, laboratory test data, and additional field data, are presented in Appendix A. The Boring Log Key, defining the terms and descriptive symbols used on each log of boring, is also presented in Appendix A. Subsurface fence diagrams, which present the changes in lithology and groundwater conditions, along the water main alignment are presented in Appendix A.

5/14/2021 \ Page 4

4.3 Groundwater Conditions

We also observed for groundwater levels in the boreholes while advancing the boreholes.

Groundwater was encountered in multiple boreholes during drilling, measured immediately after drilling, and measured 24 hours after completion of drilling. Groundwater levels observed in boreholes are presented in Table 4.3.1.

Table 4.3.1 – Summary of Groundwater Levels Observed in Boreholes

Boring No.

Groundwater Level while Drilling (feet)

Groundwater Level Immediately After

Drilling (feet)

Groundwater Level Measurement 24 hours

After Drilling (feet)

B-01 3.75 3.67 3.42

B-02 3.33 3.25 3.42

B-03 3.33 3.25 2.50

B-04 Not Encountered Not Encountered Not Encountered

B-05a Not Encountered Not Encountered Not Encountered

B-05b Not Encountered Not measured due to introduction of coring fluids

B-06 11.30 11.00 9.00

B-07 Not Encountered Not measured; borehole caved-in at 3 feet.

B-08 9.42 9.33 Not measured; borehole caved-in at 5 feet.

It is imperative to note that the short-term groundwater level observations performed as part of this study are not an accurate evaluation of groundwater levels at the project site and should not be interpreted as a comprehensive groundwater study. The observations made during this investigation may also not represent conditions at the time of construction and it should be understood the presence of groundwater may have an effect on certain construction activities and long-term performance of foundations and pavements. Groundwater levels are highly dependent on climatic and hydrologic conditions before and after construction, and site development including irrigation demands, drainage and other factors. If a detailed groundwater study is desired, a groundwater hydrologist should be retained to perform these services.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTS

BEYOND performed various laboratory tests to determine the soil’s physical properties. These tests allow us to classify soils and to assess soil performance under the project design conditions.

Laboratory tests are presented in each respective Log of Boring and in the Summary of Laboratory Tests in Appendix A. The project geotechnical engineer assigned appropriate laboratory tests on selected soil samples. BEYOND performed the following laboratory methods for soil analyses:

Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System): ASTM D2487;

Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass: ASTM D2216;

5/14/2021 \ Page 5

Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils: ASTM D4318;

Standard Test Methods for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than No. 200 (75-μm) Sieve:

ASTM D1140;

Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis: ASTM D6913;

Sulfate and Chlorides Content: EPA 300/300.1;

Standard Test Method for Measuring pH of Soil for Use in Corrosion Testing: ASTM G51;

and, Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the Two-Electrode Soil Box Method: ASTM G187.

5.1 Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

Moisture content tests were performed, in accordance with ASTM D2216, on selected soil samples. The test results are provided on Logs of Boring in Appendix A of the report as well as on the Summary of Laboratory Results in Appendix A of this report.

Percent finer than No. 200 (75-μm) sieve tests were performed, in accordance with ASTM D1140, on selected soil samples. The test results are provided on Logs of Boring in Appendix A of the report as well as on the Summary of Laboratory Results in Appendix A of this report. Particle-size distribution (gradation) analyses were performed, in accordance with ASTM D6913, on selected soil samples. The test results are provided on in Appendix A of this report.

Laboratory test results indicate that the native soils have 3 to 34% passing No. 200 sieve, and the native soils have liquid limit (LL) values range from about non-plastic to 68% and plastic limit (PL) value ranging from non-plastic to 39%, with Plasticity Index (PI) values ranging from about non-plastic to 29%.

A summary of laboratory testing results is presented in Appendix A of this report.

5.2 Soil Corrosiveness

BEYOND obtained the services of Xenco Laboratories to perform analytical tests to determine the content of soluble sulfate and chloride in the soils at or near foundation bearing depths. The results of soluble sulfate and chloride content are summarized in Table 5.2.1.

Table 5.2.1 – Results of Soluble Sulfate and Chloride Content

Boring No.

Depth of Sample

(feet) Soluble Chlorides

(mg/kg) Soluble Sulfate

(mg/kg)

B-2 8.5 <5.03 7.55

B-8 6.0 <5.05 <5.05

5/14/2021 \ Page 6

These test results indicate non-corrosive chloride content and negligible sulfate content. Proper precautions should be taken to mitigate corrosive potential. The Xenco test results are included within Appendix A.

Results of Minimum Resistivity and pH testing performed in accordance with ASTM G187 and ASTM G51, respectively, on soil samples from selected borings are summarized in Table 5.2.2.

Minimum resistivity testing results indicate the soils exhibit “Mildly Corrosive” characteristics based on FHWA-NHI-09-087. Cathodic protection for buried metal pipe should be designed by a qualified corrosion engineer. The Minimum Resistivity and pH test results are included within Appendix A.

Table 5.2.2 – Summary of Minimum Resistivity and pH Test Results

Boring No.

Depth of Sample

(feet) Minimum Resistivity

(ohm-cm) pH

B-2 8.5 7,591 6.82

B-8 6.0 6,433 8.26

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

BEYOND understands the proposed project will consist of installing 3,200 lineal feet of buried 16-inch ductile iron or PVC water main and a bridge mounted crossing. Based on the Logs of Boring completed as part of this study, it is anticipated that the clayey sand soils and poorly graded gravel soils will be encountered near the pipe invert depth of 7 feet below existing ground surface.

6.1 Installation by Open-Cut Method

The following subsurface conditions should be considered by the pipeline designer and contractor, based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings and geologic map:

Shallow groundwater may be encountered at some sites along the water main alignment;

and

The presence of cobbles and boulders should be considered for excavation planning.

The Contractor is solely responsible for designing, constructing and maintaining safe excavations.

The excavations should not cause any distress to any nearby structures that may exist during construction. For excavations in layered soils, when an OSHA soil type overlies a lower, less competent soil type (such as type A/B above type C, or type A above type B), the entire excavation should be based on the lower, less competent OSHA soil type. Refer to Section 7.4 of this report for the open excavation construction recommendations.

6.2 Pipe Systems Thrust Restraint

Thrust forces are generated in pressure pipes as a result of changes in pipe diameter, pipe direction or at the termination point of the pipes. Unbalanced forces within the pipes and unrestrained bends along the pipe could lead to separation of the pipe joints. For buried pipes, 5/14/2021 \ Page 7 thrust restraint is achieved by transferring the thrust force to the soil structure outside the pipe.

Various methods of thrust restraint are used including thrust blocks, restrained joints and encasement and tie-rods.

When thrust blocks mobilizing lateral earth pressure are used to provide thrust restraint, the passive earth pressure can be calculated utilizing the equation below. We recommend a factor of safety of 2.0 be applied to the passive earth pressure.

pp at depth of z, = ( h1 + ' h2) Kp + w h2 + 2cKp ½ where, pp = passive earth pressure, psf.

= Total unit weight of soil, pcf.

' = Buoyant unit weight of soil, pcf.

w = Unit weight of water, 62.4 pcf.

z = depth below ground surface for the point under consideration, feet.

h1 = depth from ground surface to ground water table, feet.

h2 = z - h1, depth from ground water table to point under consideration, feet.

Kp = coefficient of passive earth pressure.

c = cohesion of clayey soils.

The coefficient of passive earth pressure can be calculated utilizing the following equation.

Kp = tan2 (45° + /2) where, = angle of internal friction (degree)

Based on our boring logs, we recommend the following soil parameters provided in Table 6.1.1 to calculate the lateral earth pressure.

Table 6.1.1 – Engineering Properties of Subsurface Materials for Lateral Earth Pressure

Material Type

Total Unit

Weight, (pcf)

Buoyant Unit

Weight, ' (pcf)

Angle of Internal

Friction, ’ (degree) Cohesion, c

(psf)

Sandy Lean Clay 120 60 22 150

Clayey Sand with Gravel

115 55 30 0

Gravel and Cobble 120 60 32 0

Thrust blocks should be placed against undisturbed soil. Where not possible, fill materials placed between the bearing surface and undisturbed soil should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. Due to variation of subsurface conditions, soils with different strengths and characteristic will likely be encountered at a given location. The soil resulting in the lowest passive earth pressure should be used for the design of the thrust blocks.

5/14/2021 \ Page 8

6.3 Bottom Stability

During the subsurface exploration, groundwater was encountered at depths in the range of approximately 3 to 11 feet below existing site grade. Based on groundwater level observations made during the subsurface exploration, it is anticipated that groundwater will be encountered during installation of the water main.

If excavations extend below the ground water level and the soils at or near the bottom of the excavation are mainly sands, silts or low plasticity clays, the bottom can fail by blow-out (boiling) at the bottom when a sufficient hydraulic head exists. The potential for boiling or in-flow of granular soils increases where the ground water is pressurized. If the braced excavation terminates in granular soils below ground water, we recommend the ground water table be lowered to at least 2 feet below the excavation to reduce the potential of bottom boiling.

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA

In this section, we provide construction recommendations to allow earthwork to meet the intent of the geotechnical parameters provided in Section 6. We recommend that BEYOND be retained to provide verification testing services during construction. This allows us to verify that construction of foundation items is in compliance with our recommendations.

7.1 Site Preparation

Prior to construction, the contractor should establish proper and positive drainage to maintain a relatively dry condition at the proposed construction site. This will be important if any work is attempted during prolonged rainfall periods. Water ponding in construction areas should be avoided.

Winter weather conditions can also impact the construction process. Newly placed fill should not be placed on frozen subgrade and frozen material should not be used for fill.

7.2 Trench Excavation

Based on the Logs of Boring, conventional excavation equipment can be used to excavate native clay and sand soils along the alignment where subsurface investigations were performed. Dense to very dense gravel and cobbles/boulders will require heavy construction equipment to excavate these bedrock materials. We do not anticipate rock blasting would be required for the proposed trench excavation depths.

Proper equipment selection and techniques are critical for effective and economic trenching. The excavation contractor/operator familiar with local geology shall be consulted for further evaluation.

Although Beyond did not encounter continuous bedrock in our borings, the use of hydraulic rock hammer may be required at some locations to facilitate efficient excavations of large boulders.

Means and methods for foundation excavation should be determined by construction contractor.

5/14/2021 \ Page 9

7.3 Construction Dewatering

Based on the Logs of Boring, shallow groundwater should be expected along the water main alignment. If shallow groundwater is present at sites where clay soils are exposed within the excavation depths, we anticipate the groundwater re-charge rate may be slow enough to conduct excavation dewatering with conventional sumps and “trash” pumps.

However, at sites where foundation excavation bottom extends into water-bearing sand soils or gravel, the groundwater re-charge rate may be too high to manage with conventional sumps and pumps. For those sites, a dewatering system with well points or eductors may be needed to draw down the groundwater table. Without effective dewatering, the subsurface materials at excavation bottom may become unstable.

Dewatering means and methods are the responsibility of the contractor. A dewatering contractor should be consulted to evaluate the need for dewatering with well points, and to determine the layout and depth of the dewatering well points or eductors, based on the available geotechnical information. In general, we recommend the groundwater table be lowered to a minimum of 2 feet below the bottom of the excavation. Extended and/or extensive dewatering can result in settlement of existing structures in the vicinity; the contractor shall take necessary precautions to minimize the effects to those structures.

7.4 Open Excavations

Temporary construction slopes and/or permanent embankment slopes should be protected from surface runoff water. Site grading should be designed to allow drainage at planned areas where erosion protection is provided, instead of allowing surface water to flow down unprotected slopes.

Surcharge loads, either static or dynamic, should not be applied to an excavation slope.

Construction equipment should be prevented from traveling along or near the top of the excavation slope. Monitoring of temporary slopes, trenches, and dewatering during construction should be undertaken by the contractor to detect early warnings of movement within slopes, structures, pavements, etc.

For general planning purposes, BEYOND offers the following guidance:

The surficial cohesive clay soils across this site are generally medium stiff to very stiff.

Medium stiff to stiff clay soils can be classified as an OSHA Type B material that requires the excavation’s sidewall be sloped at 1H:1V (or flatter).

The native sands and gravels below the surficial clay possess low to zero cohesion, and are often water-bearing. They shall be classified as OSHA Type C material. All Type C class excavations require a 1.5H:1V (or flatter) or require use of benches.

Due to the granular nature of the subsurface soils, raveling of temporary cut slopes should be anticipated. The Contractor should assess the actual site conditions at the time of construction and make its own interpretation of the OSHA soil type for design of the excavation and trench slopes or the need for excavation shoring. Monitoring of temporary slopes, trenches, and

5/14/2021 \ Page 10 dewatering during construction should be undertaken by the contractor to detect early warnings of movement within slopes, structures, pavements, etc. The temporary excavated slopes may require modification after construction based on field conditions.

In all cases of excavations in soils, sloped excavations and trench protections are required for excavations greater than four feet in depth. The contractor’s “Competent Person” (as defined by OSHA) must inspect each trench to determine the type of bench or slope that is actually required.

With all excavations, only a “competent person” shall determine whether sloped, benched, or trench shields can be used. OSHA and applicable state and local standards should be observed and followed. Site safety is the responsibility of the contractor.

7.5 Bedding, Fill and Backfill Materials for Pipeline

The native, medium dense to very dense clayey sand and gravel/cobble as well as native, stiff lean clays, if not disturbed during trench excavation and dewatering, are suitable to provide foundation support for the proposed water main pipe. We recommend the bottom of the trench excavation be inspected by the geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative prior to placement of the pipe bedding material.

Pipe bedding material should be in accordance with 2021 Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction Standard Specification by ODOT, Part 00405.12, with ¾ inch - 0 aggregate bedding due to the anticipated groundwater condition. Fill materials (if any) below the pipelines should be granular materials per ODOT 2021 Standard Specifications Part 00330.14, placed in loose lifts not exceeding 10-inches, and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698.

All pipe trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill/backfill materials in accordance with ODOT 2021 Standard Specifications Part 00405.14. Backfill materials above the pipelines can be on-site materials free of debris, organic and oversized material greater than 6 inches or imported materials. Backfill materials above the pipelines should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12-inches and should be compacted to a minimum compaction of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. The minimum compaction requirement on trench backfill may be reduced to 90%, if the pipe backfill material is not below or within 5 feet horizontal distance of any proposed roadways/shoulders/structures.

Special care should be taken during backfill of soils located above any existing utility lines that run underneath the site. The capacity of existing lines should be evaluated to ensure that additional stresses due to construction activities do not affect the integrity of the existing lines.

7.6 Drainage

Proper drainage should be provided away from the excavations during all phases of construction and post-construction grading. Proper drainage is essential to the long-term stability of the structure. Ponding of water near the foundation elements from improper drainage should not be permitted.

5/14/2021 \ Page 11

8.0 LIMITATIONS

Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil conditions will vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil conditions are encountered that differ from those described herein, we should be notified immediately. If the scope of the proposed design or construction changes from that described in this report, our data should also be reviewed.

We prepared this report in substantial compliance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice, as it exists in the area at the time of our study. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that BEYOND will conduct an adequate program of tests and observations during the construction phase in order to evaluate compliance with our recommendations.

This report may be used only by the client, their design team, and only for the purposes stated, within three years from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time.

Any party other than the client who wishes to use this Report shall notify BEYOND of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, BEYOND may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release BEYOND from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party.

This is a geotechnical engineering report and is not intended to provide information about possible contaminated soils or the locations of any abandoned underground storage tanks. The owner should consult with an environmental specialist to determine whether this site is suitable from an environmental perspective.

Other standards or documents referenced in any given standard cited in this report, or otherwise relied upon by the authors of this report, are only mentioned in the given standard; they are not incorporated into it or "included by reference," as that latter term is used relative to contracts or other matters of law.

5/14/2021 \ Appendix

APPENDIX A

Shitike Creek Bridge Crossing

Geotechnical Letter Appendix A

Figure 1- Project Site Location Map

Project Site

Figure 2 - Borehole Locations Map

Borehole Locations

Figure 3 - Site Vicinity Geologic Map

Alluvial Deposits (Qal): Deposits of unconsolidated sediments, including undifferentiated deposits of alluvium, colluvium, terrace deposits, glacial, eolian, lacustrine, and glacial outburst floods. Material includes clay, silt, sand, and gravel, with cobble- and boulder-sized clasts.

Gravel Deposits (Qg): Predominantly well-sorted andesitic gravel reworked by streams emerging from the Cascade Mountains, and surrounding area, to the west. Deposits include clasts of cobble- and boulder-size, with minor clay, silt, and sand. Some gravel and clasts may be of local origin.

John Day Formation (Tjd): In the area of the Shitike Creek Bridge Waterline Crossing project site, the Formation consists of air-fall and water-laid tuffs and tuffaceous clays, with minor welded tuffs and argillized coarse pumice tuffs. The base of the formation is typically visible by a thick red saprolite developed on the underlying Clarno Formation.

Project Site

Qal

Qg

Tjd

N = 50

(SPT)

P = +4.5

N = 40

(MC)

T = 100/2.5"

(TCP)

R = 100

RQD = 50

M

IN

U S

N O

. 2

S

IE

V E

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

Lean Clay (CL)

Fat Clay (CH)

Silt (ML)

Elastic Silt (MH)

Silty Clay (CL-ML)

Clayey Sand (SC)

Silty Sand (SM)

Silty, Clayey Sand (SC-SM)

Poorly-Graded Sand (SP)

Well-Graded Sand (SW)

Poorly-Graded Gravel (GP)

Well-Graded Gravel (GW)

Clayey Gravel (GC)

Silty Gravel (GM)

Bedrock

Basalt

Limestone

Sandstone

Siltstone

Shale

Fill Material

N : B

LO

W

S /F

T P

: T O

N S

/S Q

F T

T : B

LO

W

S R

R

Q D

D E

P T

H

F T

LL PL

Continuous Flight Auger/Hollow Stem Auger/Wash Rotary/NX Core

PI

SURFACE ELEVATION: ft.

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION:

Groundwater was encountered at 8 ft. during drilling and measured at 9 ft. immediately after drilling

S O

IL

S

Y M

B O

L

N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE

P - POCKET PENETROMETER RESISTANCE

T - TXDOT CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

R - ROCK CORE RECOVERY

RQD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION

FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S):

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

C O

N F

IN

IN

G P

R E

S S

U R

E (P

O U

N D

S /S

Q

IN

S T

R A

IN

A

T F

A

IL

U R

E

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM

LOG OF BORING KEY

S A

M P

LE

S

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(T O

N S

/S Q

. F T

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y P

O U

N D

S /C

U .F

T

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P

LA

S T

IC

L

IM

IT

DEGREE OF WEATHERING

1) Unweathered: No evidence of any chemical or mechanical alteration.

2) Slightly weathered: Slight discoloration on surface, slight alteration along discontinuities, less that 10% of the rock volume altered.

3) Moderately weathered: Discoloring evident, surface pitted and altered with alteration penetrating well below rock surfaces, weathering "halos" evident, 10 to 50% of the rock volume altered.

4) Highly weathered: Entire mass discolored, alteration pervading nearly all of the rock with some pockets of slightly weathered rock noticeable, some minerals leached away.

5) Decomposed: Rock reduced to a soil with relicit rock texture, generally molded and crumbled by hand.

SOIL STRUCTURE

AUGER CUTTINGS

Water Level at Time Drilling, or as Shown

TYPICAL SOIL AND ROCK SYMBOLS (USCS CLASSIFICATION)

Water Level After 24 Hours, or as Shown

11-30 31-50 > 50

Very Loose Loose

Dense Very Dense

SPT

# blows/ft

Modified California (RS)

< 3

Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf)

< 0.25

Consistency

< 2 Very Soft 3-6 2-4 0.25-0.5 Soft 7-12 5-8 0.5-1.0 Medium Stiff

Slickensided

13-25 9-15

Interbedded

-- TESTING SYMBOL DEFINITIONS --

Very Stiff Hard

SPT

# blows/ft

Standard Split-spoon (SS) Pocket Penetrometer

Containing calcium carbonate

Cohesive Soils - Clay and Silt

Modified California (RS) Standard Split-spoon (SS)

SPT

# blows/ft

SPT

# blows/ft

Relative Density

Medium Dense

Cohesionless Soils - Sand and Gravel

0-6

INTACT SHELBY TUBE SAMPLE

The presence of planes of weakness having a slick and glossy appearance Alternating layers of varying material

Calcareous

1.0-2.0 Stiff 26-50 > 50

16-30 > 30

2.0-4.0 > 4.0

7-18

Water Level at End of Drilling, or as Shown

ROCK CORE SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE

19-58 59-98 > 98

< 4 4-10

1 ft. Topsoil

ORGANIC CLAY (OL), with Sand, dark brown, medium stiff, moist

SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, very loose, moist, fine to medium grained, trace Organics

WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW-GM), with Silt, Sand, Cobbles, and Boulders, dark gray to dark brown, medium dense to dense, fine to coarse grained, rounded to subrounded

Auger Refusal at 10 ft.

NP NP

18.1

39.3

11.2

33.9

7.5NP

N = 8

N = 3

N = 38

N = 26

N = 24

DRILLING METHOD(S):

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION:

PI

FIELD DATA

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUMS

O

IL

S

Y M

B O

L

LL

N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE

P - POCKET PENETROMETER RESISTANCE

T - TXDOT CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

R - ROCK CORE RECOVERY

RQD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION

C O

N F

IN

IN

G P

R E

S S

U R

E (P

O U

N D

S /S

Q

IN

P

LA

S T

IC

L

IM

IT

Groundwater encountered at 3.75 ft. during drilling, measured at

3.67 ft. immediately after drilling, and measured at 3.42 ft. 24 hours after drilling

Hollow Stem Auger

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:

LOG OF BORING B-1

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

Warm Springs, Oregon

GT2103010

Bai Engineering

M

IN

U S

N O

. 2

S

IE

V E

Shitike Creek Bridge Crossing

REMARKS:

GPS COORDINATES: Lat. 44.760544, Long. -121.272131 Heaving Sands encountered at 7.5 ft. during drilling

PL

DATE(S) DRILLED: 4/13/21

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

SURFACE ELEVATION: 1487

LABORATORY DATA

D E

P T

H

F T

S A

M P

LE

S

SHEET 1 of 1

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(T O

N S

/S Q

. F T

Beyond Engineering and Testing, LLC 3011-B South County Road 1260 Midland, Texas 79706 Telephone: 432.561.5780 www.BeyondET.com

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y P

O U

N D

S /C

U .F

T

N : B

LO

W

S /F

T P

: T O

N S

/S Q

F T

T : B

LO

W

S R

R

Q D

S T

R A

IN

A

T F

A

IL

U R

E

B E

Y O

N D

E

T L

O G

L

O G

A G

N N

L0 1.

G D

T

/1

/2

4:

T

:\O P

E R

A T

IO

N

S \G

E O

T E

C H

\9 -R

E P

O R

T \2

1\

G T

S H

IT

IK

E C

R E

E K

B R

ID

G

E C

R O

S S

IN

G

\F

IE

LD

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \G

T

S

H

IT

IK

E

C R

E E

K B

R

ID

G E

C R

O S

S

IN

G .G

P J

4 in. Topsoil SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, medium stiff, dry to moist

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL (GP), with Sand, Cobbles, and Boulders, dark gray, medium dense to very dense, wet, fine to coarse grained, rounded to subangular

Auger Refusal at 10 ft.

22 2032.1

16.0

N = 8

N = 7

N = 19

N = 21

N = 57

DRILLING METHOD(S):

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION:

PI

FIELD DATA

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUMS

O

IL

S

Y M

B O

L

LL

N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE

P - POCKET PENETROMETER RESISTANCE

T - TXDOT CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE

R - ROCK CORE RECOVERY

RQD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION

C O

N F

IN

IN

G P

R E

S S

U R

E (P

O U

N D

S /S

Q

IN

P

LA

S T

IC

L

IM

IT

Groundwater encountered at 3.33 ft. during drilling, measured at

3.25 ft. immediately after drilling, and measured at 3.42 ft. 24 hours after drilling

Hollow Stem Auger

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

NUMBER:

LOG OF BORING B-2

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

Warm Springs, Oregon

GT2103010

Bai Engineering

M

IN

U S

N O

. 2

S

IE

V E

Shitike Creek Bridge Crossing

REMARKS:

GPS COORDINATES: Lat. 44.760346, Long. -121.27066 Heaving Sands encountered at 7 ft. during drilling

PL

DATE(S) DRILLED: 4/13/21

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

SURFACE ELEVATION: 1482

LABORATORY DATA

D E

P T

H

F T

S A

M P

LE

S

SHEET 1 of 1

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H

(T O

N S

/S Q

. F T

Beyond Engineering and Testing, LLC 3011-B South County Road 1260 Midland, Texas 79706 Telephone: 432.561.5780 www.BeyondET.com

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y P

O U

N D

S /C

U .F

T

N : B

LO

W

S /F

T P

: T O

N S

/S Q

F T

T : B

LO

W

S R

R

Q D

S T

R A

IN

A

T F

A

IL

U R

E

B E

Y O

N D

E

T L

O G

L

O G

A G

N N

L0 1.

G D

T

/1

/2

4:

T

:\O P

E R

A T

IO

N

S \G

E O

T E

C H

\9 -R

E P

O R

T \2

1\

G T

S H

IT

IK

E C

R E

E K

B R

ID

G

E C

R O

S S

IN

G

\F

IE

LD

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \G

T

S

H

IT

IK

E

C R

E E

K B

R

ID

G E

C R

O S

S

IN

G .G

2 in. Topsoil SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, very stiff, dry to moist

WELL GRADED GRAVEL (GW), with Sand, Cobbles, and Boulders, dark gray to dark brown, loose to very dense, moist to wet, fine to coarse grained, rounded to subrounded

Total Depth = 14.5 ft.

NP NP

21.8

10.3

35.7

3.3NP

N = 16

N = 19

N = 44

N = 10

N = 37

N = 50/6"

DRILLING METHOD(S):

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION:

PI

FIELD DATA

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUMS

O

IL

S

Y M

B O

L

LL

N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE

P…